Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913296 --- Comment #3 from Clint Savage <herlo1@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here's the output of fedora-review Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== 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. [ ]: 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 [-]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define pybasever 2.6 %define __python_ver 26 %define __python %{_bindir}/python%{?pybasever} ===== 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm salt-api.src: W: file-size-mismatch salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 40960, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 33401 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint salt-api 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python python(abi) = 2.7 python-cherrypy salt systemd-units Provides -------- salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm: salt-api = 0.7.5-1.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 74319ecc34f7f90888307c8c91e20d68c65b3fa7dbe19e2c1660ab5c0414069d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5057c2468aea492607addf694033f8d36796cf55bfd6ff7abfc277842edb51a1 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 913296 ------------------------------------------- The review shows a couple concerns, one is the desire for python2-devel. I'm not sure that's required here, since it seems that salt also doesn't require this library. But the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires suggests this is necessary. I will do a bit of legwork here to confirm it is indeed required. Additionally, the tarball checksum doesn't match the upstream tarball. However, the diff above shows no differences. I'm guessing this is because you created your own tarball. When I build my rpms, I do a simple wget to the SOURCES directory to ensure I have the current upstream tarball. I performed a review of the spec file as well and suggest cleaning up trailing spaces from your description lines. ------------------------------------------- cat rpmlint.txt Checking: salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.src.rpm salt-api-0.7.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm salt-api.src: W: file-size-mismatch salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 40960, http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/salt-api/salt-api-0.7.5.tar.gz = 33401 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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=2e5RQBBZAI&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review