Review output

2 files changed, 230 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/libaec/libaec-1.0.0-2.fc27.src.rpm b/libaec/libaec-1.0.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f830d84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libaec/libaec-1.0.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
diff --git a/libaec/review.txt b/libaec/review.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..790bd54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libaec/review.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+
+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
+
+
+
+===== MUST items =====
+
+C/C++:
+[ ]: 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:
+[ ]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
+     "GPL". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
+     in /travis/libaec/review-libaec/licensecheck.txt
+[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
+[ ]: %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 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.
+[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
+[ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 3 files.
+[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
+[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
+     one supported primary architecture.
+[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
+     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
+[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 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:
+[ ]: 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).
+[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
+     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libaec-
+     debuginfo
+[ ]: Package functions as described.
+[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
+[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
+[ ]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
+[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
+
+===== EXTRA items =====
+
+Generic:
+[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
+     Note: No rpmlint messages.
+[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
+     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
+[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
+     is arched.
+[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
+
+
+Rpmlint
+-------
+Checking: libaec-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
+          libaec-devel-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
+          libaec-debuginfo-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
+          libaec-1.0.0-2.fc27.src.rpm
+libaec.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
+libaec.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
+libaec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aec
+libaec-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
+libaec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
+4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
+
+
+
+
+Rpmlint (debuginfo)
+-------------------
+Checking: libaec-debuginfo-1.0.0-2.fc27.x86_64.rpm
+1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rpmlint (installed packages)
+----------------------------
+sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
+libaec.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
+libaec.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
+libaec.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aec
+libaec-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
+libaec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
+3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
+
+
+
+Requires
+--------
+libaec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
+    /sbin/ldconfig
+    libaec.so.0.0.6()(64bit)
+    libc.so.6()(64bit)
+    rtld(GNU_HASH)
+
+libaec-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
+    libaec(x86-64)
+    libaec.so.0.0.6()(64bit)
+    libsz.so.2.0.1()(64bit)
+
+libaec-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
+
+
+
+Provides
+--------
+libaec:
+    libaec
+    libaec(x86-64)
+    libaec.so.0.0.6()(64bit)
+    libsz.so.2.0.1()(64bit)
+
+libaec-devel:
+    libaec-devel
+    libaec-devel(x86-64)
+
+libaec-debuginfo:
+    libaec-debuginfo
+    libaec-debuginfo(x86-64)
+
+
+
+Source checksums
+----------------
+https://gitlab.dkrz.de/k202009/libaec/uploads/631e85bcf877c2dcaca9b2e6d6526339/libaec-1.0.0.tar.gz :
+  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3e79e33b380cb2f17323d3de5e70c4e656242a62bfbe72ffcea36adaa344c47d
+  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e79e33b380cb2f17323d3de5e70c4e656242a62bfbe72ffcea36adaa344c47d
+
+
+Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
+Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n libaec
+Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
+Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
+Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
+Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6