https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949895 Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jstanek@xxxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #3 from Honza Horak <hhorak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > Status? perl-XML-Tiny Sorry, the delay is my mistake. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues (moved up, but also included in-line): ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if necessary, a comment should be provided - %defattr can be removed; not a blocker - Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be enough to use that package for development. - See comments in-line - Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though. - BSD and MIT requires their text included https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requires: python3"? - Version 6.0.0 is available - Please see if the test case can be run in build-time. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. - hardcoded -O1 and no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS usage in %install section -- if necessary, a comment should be provided [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed - %defattr can be removed; not a blocker [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package - Maybe this is only my misunderstanding, but why we need -devel subpackage with the only one header file here? I thought having the base package should be enough to use that package for development. [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 - See comments in-line [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hhorak/Downloads/python3-bsddb3 /review-python3-bsddb3/licensecheck.txt - Project announces MIT on its web page but only BSD license is used in some source files. This should be communicated with upsteam so they idealy use proper MIT clause in every source file. Not a blocker though. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. - BSD and MIT requires their text included https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - I don't see it in the guidelines, but shouldn't there be "Requires: python3"? [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: 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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. - Version 6.0.0 is available [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. - Please see if the test case can be run in build-time. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: [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: python3-bsddb3-5.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm python3-bsddb3-devel-5.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L python3-bsddb3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-bsddb3 python3-bsddb3-devel python3-bsddb3.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so 0775L python3-bsddb3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-bsddb3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env libc.so.6()(64bit) libdb-5.3.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.3m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-bsddb3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-bsddb3(x86-64) Provides -------- python3-bsddb3: _pybsddb.cpython-33m.so()(64bit) python3-bsddb3 python3-bsddb3(x86-64) python3-bsddb3-devel: python3-bsddb3-devel python3-bsddb3-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-bsddb3: /usr/lib64/python3.3/site-packages/bsddb3/_pybsddb.cpython-33m.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bsddb3/bsddb3-5.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4619f6189e5f94e337c62ae398ccb9c25568f3c3cab39970a4ea7625d38f8b3e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4619f6189e5f94e337c62ae398ccb9c25568f3c3cab39970a4ea7625d38f8b3e Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python3-bsddb3 -- 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=DQRJNytkjt&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review