https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021733 --- Comment #4 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- ===== Review report for python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1 ===== Package has issues. :( Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1021733-python- SecretStorage/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. :) [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> License is missing in -doc. The -doc sub-pkg should have `%doc changelog LICENSE README build/sphinx/html` (without that '/*' suffixed) instead of `%doc build/sphinx/html/*`. So it will pick-up all docs && carry a html-subdir. [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: 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 20480 bytes in 6 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-SecretStorage , python-SecretStorage-doc ---> not needed [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. ---> there is a tests-subdir in tarball. You should BR: python-nose, python3-nose and run the corresponding `nosetests` within %check. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-SecretStorage-doc-1.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-SecretStorage-1.0.0-1.fc21.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-SecretStorage python-SecretStorage python-Secre tStorage-doc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python3-SecretStorage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dbus python-SecretStorage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dbus-python python(abi) python-SecretStorage-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-SecretStorage: python3-SecretStorage python-SecretStorage: python-SecretStorage python-SecretStorage-doc: python-SecretStorage-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/S/SecretStorage/SecretStorage-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27c441f2cf524edaa0cf39abb4a9f65cde6ab99bb1471a9e2cdb11ffcfbc0081 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27c441f2cf524edaa0cf39abb4a9f65cde6ab99bb1471a9e2cdb11ffcfbc0081 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1021733 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 ===== Additional comments ===== - There is trouble when building the autodocs with sphinx, because of missing BR: dbus-python. You should add that. ===== Solution ===== NOT APPROVED -- Please fix those issues and think about my additional comments. I'll run another review on the updated package then. -- 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