Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=920387 --- Comment #4 from Steven Dake <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [ ]: 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. > [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS > /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt > [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. > [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. > [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [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]: 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. > [ ]: 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: > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [ ]: Package functions as described. > [ ]: Latest version is packaged. > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [ ]: 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. > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > [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 tarball generation or download is documented. > [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). > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint heat-cfntools > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-init > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-create-aws-symlinks > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-signal > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-get-metadata > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-push-stats > heat-cfntools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cfn-hup > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > heat-cfntools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python > python(abi) > python-boto > python-psutil > > > > Provides > -------- > heat-cfntools: > heat-cfntools > > > > MD5-sum check > ------------- > https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/heat-cfntools/heat-cfntools-1.2. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > ab305b318eacc0a0092fabd6897274ec28e9b3f6d30e03b0dc82765233bb729b > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 > Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 > Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n > heat-cfntools-1.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > ===== Manual review of MUST items from Comment #1 ===== > > [X ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > - Apache License Version 2.0 > > [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [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)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS > /heat-cfntools/licensecheck.txt > > -> Output from licensecheck.txt > ================================ > $ cat licensecheck.txt > > Apache (v2.0) > ------------- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > heat_cfntools/tests/test_cfn_helper.py > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > ---------------------------- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > setup.py > ================================ > > [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. > [-]: 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 ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > > > > Note: The only minor nit is there's no copyright in -- > /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/heat-cfntools-1.2/ > setup.py > > As it's under a MUST item, it needs to be addressed I guess. > > Rest all looks good to me, package approved w/ the above nit addressed. > > Scratch build successful per comment #2. Thanks for the quick review! Note that the policy is that if the project doesn't have a LICENSE file, it must have license text on each source file. A LICENSE file overrides individual copyrights on py files. None-the-less I have filed a bug with upstream because IMO files should all have license headers in the case they are copied out of tree: https://bugs.launchpad.net/heat-cfntools/+bug/1154136 In the meantime, could you approve the package with the understanding that I will rebase as soon as the upstream update comes out? Thanks -steve -- 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=ZWPXTKPLdR&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review