Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923084 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Successful Koji scratchbuild for EL5: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5226234 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent, and his messages scares me a bit: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint python26-psutil-* | grep -v spelling-error python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psmswindows.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/error.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psmswindows.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_compat.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_compat.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/__init__.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/error.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psbsd.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_common.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psosx.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_common.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psosx.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psbsd.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_pslinux.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_pslinux.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psposix.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/_psposix.pyc expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.ppc: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/psutil/__init__.pyo expected 62161 (2.6), found 62061 (2.4) python26-psutil.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://psutil.googlecode.com/files/psutil-0.6.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 29 warnings. work ~/Desktop: It seems that it still uses py24 for producing optimized bytecode. Could you please comment on this? + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum psutil-0.6.1.tar.gz* d665a4cc58c9a5d207fb0dc9869fc0ee10f4f66ad885e84886ef6339ccce0a6f psutil-0.6.1.tar.gz d665a4cc58c9a5d207fb0dc9869fc0ee10f4f66ad885e84886ef6339ccce0a6f psutil-0.6.1.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. -/+ The package SHOULD HAVE a %clean section, which must contain rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See below + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. -/+ At the beginning of %install, the package SHOULD run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See below. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. OK, so please comment on py24 issue. Also there is one thing I'm not sure - doe we still need adding rm -rf %{buildroot} in the %install and % clean sections. It builds fine w/o it but maybe it caused some issues with a mock/koji? Actually I'd like you to add them back - just to be sure. -- 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=3h3eoga3F5&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review