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=679613 --- Comment #2 from Tim Lauridsen <tla@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-24 10:08:09 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Buildroot is correct (EPEL5 & Fedora < 10) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [x] : MUST - Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).(EPEL6 & Fedora < 13) [-] : MUST - %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x] : MUST - Each %files section contains %defattr [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] : MUST - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] : MUST - Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [-] : MUST - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [-] : MUST - No %config files under /usr. [-] : MUST - Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. (EPEL5) [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ================================================================================ python-flask.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework python-flask.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint python-flask-doc-0.6.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ================================================================================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ================================================================================ rpmlint python-flask-0.6.1-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ================================================================================ python-flask.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework python-flask.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microframework -> micro framework, micro-framework, framework 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ================================================================================ [-] : MUST - Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 MD5SUM upstream package : 7af56e33fb6a35db2818c20e604c8698 [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. BuildRequires: python-devel should be python2-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [-] : MUST - The spec file handles locales properly. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] : MUST - 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] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-] : MUST - Compiler flags are appropriate. [-] : MUST - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [-] : MUST - Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x] : MUST - Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] : MUST - Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Package contains no static executables. [x] : MUST - Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package does not genrate any conflict. [x] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [x] : MUST - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [-] : SHOULD - Uses parallel make. [-] : SHOULD - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [?] : SHOULD - Package functions as described. [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] : 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. [!] : SHOULD - Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. It look like the source have a test suite, so it would be a good idea to add %check %{__python} setup.py test [?] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] : SHOULD - Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x] : SHOULD - File based requires are sane. [x] : SHOULD - Man pages included for all executables. [-] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Issues: [!] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. BuildRequires: python-devel should be python2-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires [!] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. It look like the source have a test suite, so it would be a good idea to add %check %{__python} setup.py test -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review