https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828732 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny@xxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 My comments are inlined. ==== Generic ==== [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 Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. The Storage class (see below) is from web.py, which is packaged in Fedora as python-webpy. Please check (perhaps with upstream) whether it is possible to use that instead of the bundled one. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Two issues here: - The license should be "GPLv3+", not "GPLv3". - The comments in feedstail/utils.py state that the "Storage" class (the only one in this file) is from the web.py project and thus in the Public Domain, whereas the file header is the standard GPLv3+ header. This has to be clarified upstream, I think. Until then, the license tag should be "GPLv3+ and Public Domain". [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Wrong requirement: The package is named "python-feedparser", not "python-FeedParser". [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. See above. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. feedstail-0.4.0.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 MD5SUM upstream package : 5b44af1b294e5c6a9aec70dc2ac158e2 [!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. In the %description: - Grammar: "It monitor_s_ a feed ...", "Feedstail aim_s_ to be ..." - The last undescore is probably meant to be a comma. - (Only cosmetic) There should be a newline between the two paragraphs. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). See above. [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Please add a comment in the specfile for the -doc patch. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0: feedstail-doc.patch (feedstail-doc.patch ) [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail feedstail.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary feedstail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint feedstail-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackable -> hack able, hack-able, hackle feedstail.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsstail -> horsetail 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Additional notes: - The rpmlint warnings are bogus. - You should think of creating something more usful to the user from the README.rst, using either rst2html or even rst2man (both from the python-docutils package) at build time, and install the resulting HTML and/or manpage. (Surely not a blocker though, just a suggestion.) Package is not yet approved, please have a look at the marked issues. -- 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