Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921305 --- Comment #3 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Manual review. Also, added some notes below where appropriate. ===== MUST items manual review ===== [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MIT [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-wsme/licensecheck.txt This can be ignored. ------------------------- $ cat licensecheck.txt Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/WSME-0.5b1/wsmeext/__init__.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. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 10 files. The above can be waived, rpmlint doesn't complain about it ------------------------- kashyap@python-wsme$ du -sh rpms-unpacked/python-wsme-0.5b1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm/usr/share/doc/ 64K rpms-unpacked/python-wsme-0.5b1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm/usr/share/doc/ ------------------------- Python: [x ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. NOTE: Since, I'm not a python expert, nor 'eggs', I took an opinion of another experienced Fedora package reviewer (paragn), and we examined build.log from the scratch build above to ensure everything is sane. It is. Info from build.log (adding here for reference, as scratch builds will be deleted after a few days) ------------------------- . . running install_egg_info running egg_info creating WSME.egg-info writing requirements to WSME.egg-info/requires.txt writing WSME.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing top-level names to WSME.egg-info/top_level.txt writing dependency_links to WSME.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to WSME.egg-info/entry_points.txt writing manifest file 'WSME.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest file 'WSME.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in' writing manifest file 'WSME.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' ------------------------- ===== SHOULD items manual review ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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. So, everything looks good to me. -- 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=ISW7wNsqFP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review