Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 5642240 bytes in 142 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [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. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: 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. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 5652480 bytes in /usr/share 2836480 libisofs-1.2.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm 2816000 libisofs- devel-1.2.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: libisofs-1.2.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm libisofs-devel-1.2.6-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file system, file-system, systemically libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multisession -> simulation libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xattr -> attract libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystems -> file systems, file-systems, ecosystems libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib libisofs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zisofs -> kissoffs libisofs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libisofs-1.2.6/COPYRIGHT libisofs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libisofs-1.2.6/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- libisofs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libisofs(x86-64) libisofs.so.6()(64bit) pkgconfig libisofs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libacl.so.1()(64bit) libacl.so.1(ACL_1.0)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libisofs-devel: libisofs-devel libisofs-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libisofs-1) libisofs: libisofs libisofs(x86-64) libisofs.so.6()(64bit) libisofs.so.6(LIBISOFS6)(64bit) MD5-sum check ------------- http://files.libburnia-project.org/releases/libisofs-1.2.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c89da6821d5cac049657a27bbbc19d69b475ca51bfd595804617ee6ee2e977b7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c89da6821d5cac049657a27bbbc19d69b475ca51bfd595804617ee6ee2e977b7 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 libisofs -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires