Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950699 --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> --- MUST-fix items ============== The following items must be fixed before I can approve the package. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires Please switch the python-devel requirement over to python2-devel - Please take care of rpmlint warnings described at the bottom of this review. - Upstream includes a CHANGES.rst and README.rst. Please include those in the %doc line. - Please remove the 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' line unless you plan to build this for el5. If that is the case, just let me know. Should-fix items ================ These items don't block package approval, but they are nice-to-have. - The .spec you posted here and the .spec included in the SRPM are different. That's not too big of a deal, but please make sure to use the latest one (the one in the srpm) as it is more correct. - Can you make the file ownership in the %files section more explicit? /* covers it all, but doesn't help the reader understand what is actually being packaged. - The package includes a test suite! Can you run it in the check section? - Upstream doesn't include a LICENSE file. Can you file a bug with them asking them to include one in their next release? If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. - Upstream claims to support python3. Can you add a python3 subpackage? The pypi2spec tool (when from a git checkout) can do this automatically for you if you pass it 'pypi2spec --python3 path.py'. This isn't necessary, but is cool for the long term. ===== 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 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. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. 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/threebean/950699 -python-path/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). [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: python-path-3.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm python-path.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) os -> OS, och, so python-path.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-path.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C allowing common operations on files to be invoked on those path objects directly. python-path.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.1 ['3.0.1-1.fc18', '3.0.1-1'] python-path.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python-path.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-path python-path.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) os -> OS, och, so python-path.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-path.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C allowing common operations on files to be invoked on those path objects directly. python-path.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.1 ['3.0.1-1.fc18', '3.0.1-1'] python-path.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License python-path.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/threebean/950699-python-path/srpm/python-path.spec 2013-04-10 13:18:54.003275995 -0400 +++ /home/threebean/950699-python-path/srpm-unpacked/python-path.spec 2013-04-10 13:18:54.486280174 -0400 @@ -7,5 +7,5 @@ Summary: A python module wrapper for os.path -License: MIT +License: MIT License URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/path.py Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/path.py/%{bname}.py-%{version}.zip @@ -18,5 +18,4 @@ allowing common operations on files to be invoked on those path objects directly. -See documentation here http://amoffat.github.io/sh/. %prep Requires -------- python-path (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-path: python-path MD5-sum check ------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/path.py/path.py-3.0.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : acae42cfdc07aca822c600f1050d1ee3c9a4385eb59c6c65390968d687d1a549 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acae42cfdc07aca822c600f1050d1ee3c9a4385eb59c6c65390968d687d1a549 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 950699 -- 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=AfQMmfybvQ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review