https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 --- Comment #3 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1103420-python- autowrap/licensecheck.txt ---> please ask upstream to prepend the actual license to the source-files. did you even read the LICENSE-file *BEFORE* packaging?!? License: GPLv3+ (spec) vs. License: BSD (LICENSE-file in src) Please refer to the process mentioned in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages ---> owned on rawhide by python3-pkg. false positive! [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4 ---> owned on rawhide by python3-pkg. false positive! [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/tests(python-libturpial, python-django-federated-login) ---> are the files in %{pythonX_sitelib}/tests even needed at runtime? do they serve any special purpose? from my findings they are just useless clutter, because those are just a small excerpt from what is contained in the tarball's tests-dir. Double-check and use %exclude if appropriate, please! [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: 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 ---> there are some devel-files located in %{pythonX_sitelib}/autowrap/data_files, but they are needed for the intended use of the 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. [?]: 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. ---> according to files located in %{pythonX_sitelib}/autowrap/data_files there is at least boost-devel needed, even at runtime of the package. Because the wrapper makes heavy use of boost's shared_ptr / smart_ptr. In conclusion to the way the package is meant to work the list of the minmal needed requires is: Requires: pythonX-devel, (python3-)Cython, boost-devel [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. ---> spec-file has issues, refering to the packaging guidelines for Python-packages. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: 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 10 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> severe 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: 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]: 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. [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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> did you even read them *BEFORE* packaging? please read and understand these two: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Building_more_than_once http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> the python2-pkg requires /usr/bin/python3 ?!? [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-autowrap ---> python3-subpkg is meant to be independent from main-pkg. [!]: Package functions as described. ---> the python2-pkg requires /usr/bin/python3 ?!? [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> as I already told you in comment #1: https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/%{checkout}.tar.gz will give you a working url for a src-tarball. If you'll append '#/%{name}-%{checkout}.tar.gz' to this you'll get a nicely named src-tarball when using `spectool`. [-]: 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. ---> testsuite is NOT run with Python3. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. ---> as commented above [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.noarch.rpm python3-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.noarch.rpm python-autowrap-0.4.0-1.20140321git26e901.fc21.src.rpm python-autowrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp ---> this one is needed for the package to function properly. It's used for 'autowrapping'. false positive! python-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/__pycache__/Types.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) … snip … python3-autowrap.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/__pycache__/ConversionProvider.cpython-34.pyc expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) ---> this warning is a bug in rpmlint, which needs to be fixed there. false positive! python3-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python-autowrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.src: W: invalid-url Source0: autowrap-26e9016e3f99dbe746bd1e09d13ce65f836c8531.zip ---> as stated above. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 32 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-autowrap python3-autowrap python-autowrap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod python-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> as commented above. Requires -------- python-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 ---> dafuq? python(abi) python3-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python-autowrap: python-autowrap python3-autowrap: python3-autowrap Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1103420 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 ===== Additional Information ===== * When thiking about the pkg's Requires and the intended functionality, I'm *strongly* tending to the conclusion, this *MUST* be arch'ed and needs to have %{?_isa}-Requires… * There is lots of rrom for improvement is the spec-file, but let's defer this to a point, when all severe issues are fixed up. * If you need help on packaging this correctly, you can contact me directly using IRC (besser82 in #fedora-devel, #fedora-mentors) or email (address is mentioned in rhbz comment headers). ===== Solution ===== NOT approved; severe issues found! Please fix those and I'll take another run on the package. -- 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