https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121 Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail [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. [x]: 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 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. python-kmod.src: W: invalid-url Source0: //github.com/downloads/agrover/python-kmod/python-kmod-0.1.tar.gz Seems there's a colon missing. And also use Source0 instead of Source. python-kmod.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kmod.so kmod.so see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#private-shared-object-provides https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#General_filter_setup python-kmod.i686: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/kmod.so 0775L I'd say just put this into %install chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{python_sitearch}/kmod.so And I think it would be better to list the files in %files like this: %{python_sitearch}/kmod.so %{python_sitearch}/kmod*.egg-info instead of %{python_sitearch}/* [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 3646a6f0a8b98234b6df0ded1c0fefd4 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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. Actually it includes more licence files than I think is necessary :-) I don't understand why there's the GPLv2 licence file (COPYING) in the upstream (you are upstream, aren't you ?) tarball when the source code is under LGPLv2.1 [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. -- 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