Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in expect- devel , expectk [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: 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 %doc. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 276480 bytes in 4 files. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %{!?tcl_version: %define tcl_version %(echo 'puts $tcl_version' | tclsh)} %{!?tcl_sitearch: %define tcl_sitearch %{_libdir}/tcl%{tcl_version}} [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: expect-5.45-7.fc18.x86_64.rpm expect-devel-5.45-7.fc18.x86_64.rpm expectk-5.45-7.fc18.x86_64.rpm expect.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcl -> cl, tel, til expect.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd -> passed, password expect.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsck -> Schick expect.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rlogin -> logging expect.x86_64: W: no-soname /usr/lib64/libexpect5.45.so expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lpunlock expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary timed-run expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rlogin-cwd expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary timed-read expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weather expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rftp expect.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ftp-rfc expect-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcl -> cl, tel, til expect-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd -> passed, password expect-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsck -> Schick expect-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rlogin -> logging expectk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcl -> cl, tel, til expectk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US passwd -> passed, password expectk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsck -> Schick expectk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rlogin -> logging expectk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tclsh -> clash expectk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xpstat expectk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tkpasswd 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 23 warnings. Requires -------- expect-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): expect expect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexpect5.45.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) expectk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh expect Provides -------- expect-devel: expect-devel expect-devel(x86-64) expect: expect expect(x86-64) libexpect5.45.so()(64bit) expectk: expectk expectk(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- expect: /usr/lib64/libexpect.so expect: /usr/lib64/libexpect5.45.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/expect/expect5.45.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b28dca90428a3b30e650525cdc16255d76bb6ccd65d448be53e620d95d5cc040 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b28dca90428a3b30e650525cdc16255d76bb6ccd65d448be53e620d95d5cc040 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (903b443) last change: 2012-12-20 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn expect -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires