Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492613 --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-13 05:39:11 EDT --- REVIEW FOR 79ed4e70aaf0701cab00fca77695c5f0 canto-0.6.8-1.fc10.src.rpm FAIL - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/canto-* canto.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/widecurse.so 0775 canto.i386: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/canto_html.py 0644 canto.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 3) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. -> widecurse.so should be 0644 -> can be ignored -> Ether use tabs _or_ spaces (cosmetics) OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLV2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. FAIL - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. License tag is GPLv2+, but canto/canto.py reads: # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as # published by the Free Software Foundation. So this is GPlv2 (only). OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matche the upstream source by MD5 1fbfbff9f7037900fba60322d0b85eab OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. FAIL - MUST: Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires: Missing BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel for the egg info, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python/Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. FAIL - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line: widecurse.so is 0775 OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Issues: - Fix rpmlint - Fix license tag - Missing BuildRequires: python-setuptools-devel - Missing Requires: python-chardet During build on F11 I see: + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile Compiling /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/canto-0.6.8-1.fc11.i386/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/canto/const.py ... Sorry: TypeError: ('compile() expected string without null bytes',) ... Do you have an idea what is causing this? I don't think that it's related to the package itself since I don't see this error on F10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review