Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952347 --- Comment #5 from Kiril Nesenko <knesenko@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #4) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > [x] = Pass > [!] = Fail > [-] = Not applicable > [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > ===== 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. > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > The package contains an "intl" directory that is part of gettext. > > [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 > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > It looks good to me as far as I know the Packaging Guidelines. I leave to the > sponsor to tick this box. > > [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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 > or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/simon/rpmreview/review-ovirt- > image-uploader/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. > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > You probably need to add: > > %dir %{python_sitelib}/ovirt_image_uploader Patch proposed here: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14040/ > > [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: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > [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]: No %config files under /usr. > [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: > [x]: 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. > > Not sure if this is applicable. Although ovirt-image-uploader does not > provide > and egg file. > > [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > Package > > [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag > Note: Could not download Source0 > > Please solve this when everything else is fixed. Source has been uploaded: http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.2/src/ovirt-image-uploader-3.2.2.tar.gz > > [!]: Buildroot is not present > Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release} > > This would be better if it was fixed. > > [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. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > > This will be probably fixed when the Source0 will be available to download. http://resources.ovirt.org/releases/3.2/src/ovirt-image-uploader-3.2.2.tar.gz > > [-]: 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 this on koji. > > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [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]: Uses parallel make. > [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). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: ovirt-image-uploader-3.2.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm > ovirt-image-uploader.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirt_image_uploader/ovf/ovfenvelope.py > 0644L /usr/bin/env > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. > > > Please remove "#!/usr/bin/env python" if it's not a script. > If it's a script, place it somewhere else. Patch: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14043/ > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint ovirt-image-uploader > ovirt-image-uploader.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ovirt_image_uploader/ovf/ovfenvelope.py > 0644L /usr/bin/env > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > Please remove "#!/usr/bin/env python" if it's not a script. > If it's a script, place it somewhere else. > > > Requires > -------- > ovirt-image-uploader (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python > config(ovirt-image-uploader) > ovirt-engine-sdk > python > python(abi) > > > > Provides > -------- > ovirt-image-uploader: > config(ovirt-image-uploader) > ovirt-image-uploader > > > > 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 -name -n ovirt-image-uploader -- 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=Lud0aUletx&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review