https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857484 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Radej <tradej@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. >>>> %doc contains tests and example files, including executable .py scripts. >>>> Unless you have a very good reason why it should be like this (which I >>>> would ask you to kindly provide in a comment), move them please into >>>> sitelib in the main package. Notes: ====== [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [!]: Buildroot is not present [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) >>>> If you really want this package in older Fedora/RHEL versions, disregard >>>> these notes. Otherwise please consider removing the corrensponding clauses. ===== 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. [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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n python3-simplevisor [!]: 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) 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tradej/reviews/857484-python- simplevisor/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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: No rpmlint messages. [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. Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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 (simplevisor-0.5.tar.gz) [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-simplevisor-0.5-1.fc19.src.rpm python-simplevisor-0.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-simplevisor 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-simplevisor-0.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl /usr/bin/python perl(Getopt::Long) perl(List::Util) perl(No::Worries) perl(No::Worries::Die) perl(No::Worries::Log) perl(No::Worries::PidFile) perl(No::Worries::Proc) perl(No::Worries::Syslog) perl(No::Worries::Warn) perl(Pod::Usage) perl(Time::HiRes) perl(sigtrap) perl(strict) perl(warnings) perl-Config-General perl-No-Worries python(abi) = 2.7 python-simplejson Provides -------- python-simplevisor-0.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: python-simplevisor = 0.5-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/simplevisor/simplevisor-0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d91fd278d90cb76eab39f0a51f170bdf88d09b603ca66218a17cd089f335162d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d91fd278d90cb76eab39f0a51f170bdf88d09b603ca66218a17cd089f335162d Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 857484 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 *** NOT APPROVED *** Issues summarized at the top of the post. -- 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