https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071507 John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jomara@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(jomara@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from John Eckersberg <jeckersb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. I think the following are unused: python-crypto python-iso8601 [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [?]: 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]: 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]: 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. Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 Despite not being used via egg interface as described in the previous item, Python packaging guidelines state that eggs should be provided always. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#When_to_Provide_Eggs The last line of %install removes the egg info, and should be removed. Egg info should be added to %files section as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Providing_Eggs_using_Setuptools [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Newer version available: https://github.com/openstack/python-tuskarclient/archive/0.1.1.tar.gz [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. No %check section is present. [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 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) [-]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-tuskarclient-0.1.0-3.fc21.noarch.rpm python-tuskarclient-0.1.0-3.fc21.src.rpm python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openstack -> open stack, open-stack, opens tack python-tuskarclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuskar -> Tunguska 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-tuskarclient python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, thuggish python-tuskarclient.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tuskar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/1071507-python-tuskarclient/srpm/python-tuskarclient.spec 2014-03-04 13:55:04.157162201 -0500 +++ /tmp/1071507-python-tuskarclient/srpm-unpacked/python-tuskarclient.spec 2014-02-28 20:53:45.000000000 -0500 @@ -52,4 +52,7 @@ %changelog +* Fri Feb 28 2014 Jordan OMara <jomara@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.0-3 +- added .egg-info + * Mon Feb 24 2014 Angus Thomas <athomas@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.1.0-2 - Replace explicit paths with macros Requires -------- python-tuskarclient (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-babel python-crypto python-iso8601 python-keystoneclient python-prettytable python-requests python-simplejson python-six python-stevedore Provides -------- python-tuskarclient: python-tuskarclient Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-tuskarclient/python-tuskarclient-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 84e02cea0122045afc8fdd0a457eda5dd0bad2afff751a78e13e707f2f2aacd9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 84e02cea0122045afc8fdd0a457eda5dd0bad2afff751a78e13e707f2f2aacd9 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1071507 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, 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