https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024885 Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #19 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- TL;DR: (NOTE: with 1 & 2 below addressed, package approved.) 1. In -doc package "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" is missing. This would allow the -docs package without having the license file installed, which violates "License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed." 2. In %install section, %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} should be %{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root %{buildroot} Reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros -- "The unversioned macro, %{__python} is deprecated. You should use %{__python2} to explicitly reference the python2 interpreter instead. This is future proofing for the time when things will be switched over to python3 by default instead of python2." 3. For the question in Comment #17, licensecheck tool provides some false positives. Licenses in this case are just fine. 4. About %check, we agreed to proceed w/o having it for now, as test-requirements not being in Fedora. Conv. from IRC: === Nov 14 12:11:54 <jruzicka> I think I spent reasonable amount of time getting it work and it doesnt. I think it's simply a matter of it (python-openstackclient) using bleeding edge packages that are not available in Fedora. Once they are, it's likely to already using newer version." Nov 14 12:12:08 <jruzicka> mrunge, so I see that as additional burden in future - package not building because of a new unavailable test req. Nov 14 12:12:18 <jruzicka> even though it's working just fine Nov 14 12:12:23 <mrunge> jruzicka, ok, agreed on that === Thanks mrunge for clarifications, please note here if I missed anything else. Manual review: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ===== 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. - ASL 2.0 [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)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1024885-python- openstackclient/licensecheck.txt - licensecheck just generates some false positives, linceses in this case are okay. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. - "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" is needed for -doc package. === $ file ./rpms-unpacked/python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm/usr/share/doc/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/LICENSE ./rpms-unpacked/python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm/usr/share/doc/python-openstackclient-0.2.2/LICENSE: ASCII text === [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines 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. egg-info for the package: === $ tree ./rpms-unpacked/python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/python_openstackclient-0.2.2-py2.7.egg-info/ ./rpms-unpacked/python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/python_openstackclient-0.2.2-py2.7.egg-info/ ├── dependency_links.txt ├── entry_points.txt ├── not-zip-safe ├── PKG-INFO ├── SOURCES.txt └── top_level.txt === [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- openstackclient-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. - This is a 'noarch' package. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. - From discussion on IRC: ACK for now for proceeding w/o having %check in palce as test-requirements not being in Fedora. [-]: 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. - Koji scratch build is successful[*]. [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. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [*] Koji scratch build with new SRPM attached in Comment #15 -------------------------------------------------------------- $ koji build --scratch rawhide python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Uploading srpm: python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:01 136.88 KiB 75.61 KiB/sec Created task: 6192760 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6192760 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6192760 build (rawhide, python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder18.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6192762 buildArch (python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder16.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6192762 buildArch (python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm, noarch): open (arm02-builder16.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6192760 build (rawhide, python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder18.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 6192760 build (rawhide, python-openstackclient-0.2.2-1.fc21.src.rpm) completed successfully -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review