This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gnun
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_texinfo
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "FSF All Permissive License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License
v3.0 or later [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated
file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License
v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.3
or later", "FSF All Permissive License GNU General Public License v3.0
or later", "GNU General Public License". 24 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
rpmbuild/results/gnun/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 256000 bytes in 15 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gnun-1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
gnun-1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) www -> WWW, wow
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op
gnun.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gnun.conf
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-add-fuzzy-diff
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-diff-po
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-init-po
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-link-diff
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-merge-preconverted
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-preconvert
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-report
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-validate-html
gnun.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) www -> WWW, wow
gnun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
gnun.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) www -> WWW, wow
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
gnun.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op
gnun.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gnun.conf
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-add-fuzzy-diff
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-diff-po
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-init-po
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-link-diff
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-merge-preconverted
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-preconvert
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-report
gnun.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnun-validate-html
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnun/gnun-1.0.tar.gz.sig :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9f96c0dad04856bba81696a15da975505270f79f648c05f35bde391030477de7
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f96c0dad04856bba81696a15da975505270f79f648c05f35bde391030477de7
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnun/gnun-1.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e395b33943be7f187a7bf860081464182b787db2530cd1118959cb5a98928e90
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e395b33943be7f187a7bf860081464182b787db2530cd1118959cb5a98928e90
Requires
--------
gnun (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/sed
/usr/bin/sh
Provides
--------
gnun:
gnun
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name gnun --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, R, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH