https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820659 José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable Issues: ======= [!]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/include/ufc.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Not a problem clearly this is a development package, so it is safe to ignore the requirement. [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [!]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/include/ufc.h [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamatos/tmp/fedora/review-python- ufc/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{srcname}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) This is a recommended path for EPEL, so OK. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm : /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ufc-1.pc [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0 (ufc-2.0.5-fix-python-module-install.patch) Patch1 (ufc-2.0.5-really-fix-python-module-install.patch) Source0 (ufc-2.0.5.tar.gz) Patch2 (ufc-2.0.5-fix-lib-path.patch) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-ufc-debuginfo-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.src.rpm python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm python-ufc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package python-ufc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US variational -> variation, variegation, motivational python-ufc.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: line 6) python-ufc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US variational -> variation, variegation, motivational python-ufc.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ufc/_ufc.so python-ufc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ufc-1.pc python-ufc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ufc.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-ufc-debuginfo python-ufc python-ufc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package python-ufc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US variational -> variation, variegation, motivational python-ufc.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ufc/_ufc.so python-ufc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/ufc-1.pc python-ufc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ufc.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-ufc-debuginfo-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config python(abi) = 2.7 swig Provides -------- python-ufc-debuginfo-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: python-ufc-debuginfo = 2.0.5-0.2.fc17 python-ufc-debuginfo(x86-64) = 2.0.5-0.2.fc17 python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: pkgconfig(ufc-1) = 2.0.5 python-ufc = 2.0.5-0.2.fc17 python-ufc(x86-64) = 2.0.5-0.2.fc17 Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-ufc-2.0.5-0.2.fc17.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ufc/_ufc.so MD5-sum check ------------- https://launchpad.net/ufc/2.0.x/2.0.5/+download/ufc-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 989a8ed018c2682d47262f0f3a5dc970e27b6b6d47d03d5b986d0ff2b3ee5b2a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 989a8ed018c2682d47262f0f3a5dc970e27b6b6d47d03d5b986d0ff2b3ee5b2a Python: [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel This is easy to fix you can fix this when importing, also according to the comment on the license the remark regarding the documentation has been fixed. So with the above issues fixed I _approve_ this package. You can fix these when importing. -- 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