https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049634 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - Including license text Note: Please add COPYING to the %doc line - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used - Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). Note: Please replace %{dist} with %{?dist} - Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Not much of a problem as it's just a comment ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: The unversioned milter.so is not in ld path. [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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [!]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [-]: 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. [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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pymilter-0.9.8-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-pymilter-0.9.8-2.fc19.src.rpm python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sendmail -> send mail, send-mail, Sendai python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendmail's -> send mail's, send-mail's, greenmail's python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmilter -> milliliter, millimeter python-pymilter.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/milter.so 0775L python-pymilter.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/milter python-pymilter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sendmail -> send mail, send-mail, Sendai python-pymilter.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) milter -> molter, miler, miter python-pymilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendmail's -> send mail's, send-mail's, greenmail's python-pymilter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmilter -> milliliter, millimeter python-pymilter.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pymilter python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sendmail -> send mail, send-mail, Sendai python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendmail's -> send mail's, send-mail's, greenmail's python-pymilter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmilter -> milliliter, millimeter python-pymilter.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/milter.so 0775L python-pymilter.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/milter 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/redhat/puiterwi/Documents/Development/Fedora/Reviewing/1049634-python-pymilter/srpm/python-pymilter.spec 2014-01-09 12:07:47.224708875 +0100 +++ /home/redhat/puiterwi/Documents/Development/Fedora/Reviewing/1049634-python-pymilter/srpm-unpacked/python-pymilter.spec 2014-01-07 22:59:05.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ -# we don't want to provide private python extension libs +# we don't want to provide private python extension libs in either the python2 or python3 dirs %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python_sitearch})/.*\\.so$ Requires -------- python-pymilter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libmilter.so.1.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python python(abi) python-pydns rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-pymilter: python-pymilter python-pymilter(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-pymilter: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/milter.so Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pymilter/pymilter-0.9.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3e185da522fd43d8b8b83a7ecf9196f872e7bc64b73bfc7f944515f22e6917bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e185da522fd43d8b8b83a7ecf9196f872e7bc64b73bfc7f944515f22e6917bd Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049634 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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