Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921304 Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Here goes manual review. I made inline comments where appropriate. Also thanks to Pádraig for answering some of my questions. ===== Manual review of 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. - BSD [-]: 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. - rpm -qlp results/python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.noarch.rpm confirms it [x]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS /python-pecan/licensecheck.txt This can be waived. ============================= kashyap@python-pecan$ cat /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-pecan/licensecheck.txt MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/pecan-0.2.1/pecan/middleware/recursive.py Unknown or generated -------------------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/pecan-0.2.1/setup.py kashyap@python-pecan$ ============================= [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files - This is OK. rpmlint doesn't complain about it. 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. - We don't rely on Python Eggs, so the above is not applicable. Discussed this with Pádraig. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== Manual review of Should items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. It's a noarch rpm: ============================= kashyap@python-pecan$ ls results/ available_pkgs build.log installed_pkgs python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.noarch.rpm python-pecan-0.2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm root.log state.log kashyap@python-pecan$ ============================= [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Summary: Everything looks good to me. Package approved. -- 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=DeRc3YEZDD&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review