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 2406400 bytes in 116 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. [ ]: 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). [ ]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. [ ]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [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]: 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 2437120 bytes in /usr/share 40960 libvpx-1.1.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm 2396160 libvpx- devel-1.1.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: libvpx-1.1.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libvpx-devel-1.1.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libvpx-utils-1.1.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libvpx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes libvpx.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.webmproject.org/tools/vp8-sdk/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libvpx-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.webmproject.org/tools/vp8-sdk/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.webmproject.org/tools/vp8-sdk/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary error_resilient libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary decode_to_md5 libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_set_maps libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vpxdec libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vpxenc libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_postproc libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_simple_encoder libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_scalable_patterns libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_twopass_encoder libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8cx_set_ref libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary force_keyframe libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vp8_simple_decoder libvpx-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary decode_with_drops 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. Requires -------- libvpx-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libvpx(x86-64) libvpx.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libvpx-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libvpx(x86-64) libvpx.so.1()(64bit) libvpx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libvpx-utils: libvpx-utils libvpx-utils(x86-64) libvpx-devel: libvpx-devel libvpx-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(vpx) libvpx: libvpx libvpx(x86-64) libvpx.so.1()(64bit) MD5-sum check ------------- http://webm.googlecode.com/files/libvpx-v1.1.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9ce074cf4b3bcd9a49ff93e05485b71c273bfc3685a305e55a0e7fa51beb72c5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ce074cf4b3bcd9a49ff93e05485b71c273bfc3685a305e55a0e7fa51beb72c5 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (736af0d) last change: 2013-01-28 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn libvpx -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires