https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864464 --- Comment #19 from Nikola Dipanov <ndipanov@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. [-]: %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. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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 [-]: 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. [-]: 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) [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ndipanov/864464-python- tox/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (tox-1.4.2.zip) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [x]: %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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-tox-1.4.2-5.fc19.src.rpm python-tox-1.4.2-5.fc19.noarch.rpm python-tox.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual python-tox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual python-tox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end python-tox.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %if python-tox.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} python-tox.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %endif python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end python-tox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tox 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-tox python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Virtualenv -> Virtual python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual python-tox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end python-tox.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tox 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-tox-1.4.2-5.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.7 Provides -------- python-tox-1.4.2-5.fc19.noarch.rpm: python-tox = 1.4.2-5.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/t/tox/tox-1.4.2.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8a5b3ad5ff0907c13203c5b36085f8dafbdd367e0c9211aa24797990a6f3d2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8a5b3ad5ff0907c13203c5b36085f8dafbdd367e0c9211aa24797990a6f3d2f Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 ========================= Mathias note that there is one file that is under MIT liscence (toxbootstrap.py ) so maybe this should be fixed with the upstream or dealt with somehow? Otherwise looks good! N. -- 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