https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821455 --- Comment #12 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for this new version, here is my review: Issues: ======= [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). The two macro types $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{python_sitelib} are mixed in your spec file. Please update it to use a single style, i.e. replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT by %{buildroot} as is detailed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS (note that this is not specified correctly in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros which gives several wrong mixed style examples) [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python your use of %{__python} is deprecated. This should be replaced by %{__python2}. see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros Note: the word compatibilitxy in the %description section seems a typo to me and should be compatibility I think. The rpmlint issues have been discussed above in this bugreport and are no blocking issue. The remark "Unknown or generated" in the license check refers to the string LGPL in the setup.py file. Fedora prefers to use LGPLv2+ in stead, but I feel this only applies to the spec file, so you don't need to patch the upstream sources to fix this. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user_to_make_rpms/reviews/821455.python-trml2pdf12/821455 -python-trml2pdf12/licensecheck.txt [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). two different macro styles are mixed. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines I manually checked the Guidelines, and the package seems compliant. [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). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python your use of %{__python} is deprecated. This should be replaced by %{__python2}. [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. not applicable since this is an old version packaged for compatibility reasons [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]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-trml2pdf12-1.2-10.fc21.noarch.rpm python-trml2pdf12-1.2-10.fc21.src.rpm python-trml2pdf12.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt python-trml2pdf12.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability python-trml2pdf12.src: W: strange-permission trml2pdf.1 0444L python-trml2pdf12.src: W: strange-permission trml2pdf-1.2.tar.gz 0444L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-trml2pdf12 python-trml2pdf12.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US compatibilitxy -> compatibility, comparability python-trml2pdf12.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python-trml2pdf12/LICENSE.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-trml2pdf12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-imaging python-reportlab Provides -------- python-trml2pdf12: python-trml2pdf python-trml2pdf12 Source checksums ---------------- http://www.satchmoproject.com/snapshots/trml2pdf-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0fd58e2483d1708a5c1479d3d2a947c441dd698da01669383d062d2eb116a9e3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0fd58e2483d1708a5c1479d3d2a947c441dd698da01669383d062d2eb116a9e3 http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/python-modules/packages/python-trml2pdf/trunk/debian/trml2pdf.1?revision=2936&view=co#/trml2pdf.1 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6830f83f6d58477a614aafd932a815c23220c251b9da67fb3f5ad746c89a133 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6830f83f6d58477a614aafd932a815c23220c251b9da67fb3f5ad746c89a133 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 821455 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review