https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865915 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4586979 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is NOT silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-py9p-1.0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/python-py9p-1.0.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm python-py9p.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyvfs -> payoffs python-py9p.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyvfs -> payoffs ^^^ false positive python-py9p.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/py9p/py9p.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-py9p.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/py9p/pki.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-py9p.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/py9p/sk1.py 0644L /usr/bin/env ^^^ I don't think this is a blocker but I don't see any reason why these files should be executed directly. So could you, please, add something like this to the %prep section: sed -i -e "1d" py9p/pki.py py9p/py9p.py py9p/sk1.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum py9p-1.0.1.tar.gz* 9286733887750eeeec629fff6eca33db0a1e0449efbd73cff2d466127164d2e2 py9p-1.0.1.tar.gz 9286733887750eeeec629fff6eca33db0a1e0449efbd73cff2d466127164d2e2 py9p-1.0.1.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. Well, to be honest in order to fully comply to this requirement you should replace the only $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instance to %{buildroot} but I wouldn't really insist on this. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. I don't see any issues (except the small almost cosmetic one with /usr/bin/enb noted above) so this package is APPROVED. -- 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