Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908114 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> --- Self-review and comments (build including python3 subpackages): ------- fedora-review output: Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions ** See below ** - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 2600960 bytes in 408 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ** Done? ** ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. ** The unversioned so files are python binary modules ** [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. ** See comment in spec concerning license ** [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. ** -fno-strict-aliasing was added for python-imaging-1.1.7-8, without any comment though ** [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- pillow-doc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. ** There is a hint at the license in the README.rst file ** [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/sandro/.Data/Desktop/review-python- pillow/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ** All packages require python{3}-pillow, which has README.rst in doc ** [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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. ** Obsoletes python-imaging < 1.7.8, Provides python-imaging ** [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: 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 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. ** Not doable with setuptools? ** [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ** I guess one could ask upstream for a LICENSE file ** [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ** Some additional patches can be upstreamed (will take care of that) ** [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ** See comment at beginning of spec ** [-]: 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]: 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) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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-pillow-1.7.8-86.2.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-pillow-devel-1.7.8-86.2.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-pillow-doc-1.7.8-86.2.fc19.noarch.rpm python-pillow-sane-1.7.8-86.2.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-pillow-tk-1.7.8-86.2.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-pillow.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python-pillow.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel python-pillow.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k ** Ignorable ** python-pillow.x86_64: W: invalid-license PIL ** Ignorable ** python-pillow.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_imagingcms.so 0775L python-pillow.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_imagingft.so 0775L python-pillow.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_imaging.so 0775L python-pillow.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_imagingmath.so 0775L ** I guess this is to be expected for packages with binary python modules ** python-pillow-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license PIL ** Ignorable ** python-pillow-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ** Ignorable ** python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license PIL python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/gifmaker.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/player.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/enhancer.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/pilfont.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/thresholder.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/painter.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/explode.py python-pillow-doc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python-pillow-doc-1.7.8/Scripts/viewer.py ** Ignorable, they are supposed to be executable scripts ** python-pillow-sane.x86_64: W: invalid-license PIL ** Ignorable ** python-pillow-sane.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_sane.so 0775L ** Expected ** python-pillow-tk.x86_64: W: invalid-license PIL python-pillow-tk.x86_64: W: no-documentation ** Ignorable ** python-pillow-tk.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_imagingtk.so 0775L ** Expected ** 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 18 warnings. ------- Other: rpmbuild -bs python-pillow.spec reports sh: line 0: fg: no job control which is due to %global py3ver %(%{__python3} -c "import sys; print(sys.version[:3])") on line 3 of the spec. Oddly, the py2ver variant does not cause the warning. I guess this is ignorable though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fdrhnWDw3R&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review