https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102950 Benedikt Morbach <bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach <bmorbach@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Note: this is an unofficial/preliminary review. I am new to this process, but I hope this is useful. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 62 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python- persistent/licensecheck.txt --> the docs seem to include jquery, which is is under the MIT license (https://jquery.org/license/) [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/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python3.4m --> I think python3.4 owns this on rawhide. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4, /usr/include/python2.7, /usr/include/python3.4m [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- packages/persistent(python-persistent, python-ZODB3) --> fine, as this was split out from python-ZODB3. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. --> I think python doesn't do that, but can the docs be built in parallel? [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. [x]: 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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. --> python-persistent conflicts with python-ZODB3 but I guess that will be fixed by https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100747 [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 2 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]: 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. [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: [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required --> I think fedora-review is getting confused here, I don't see a %clean [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- persistent-devel , python-persistent-doc , python3-persistent , python3 -persistent-devel , python3-persistent-doc [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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) [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-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > python-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python3-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm > python3-persistent-devel-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python3-persistent-doc-4.0.8-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > python-persistent-4.0.8-2.fc21.src.rpm > python-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation > python-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js I don't think this is relevant. It is a minimized file without any whitespace > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/mapping.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) > ... > <lots of those> > ... > python3-persistent.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/__pycache__/picklecache.cpython-34.pyo expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown) I think those are due to the rawhide mock build having a different python version? > python3-persistent-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation Seems to be fine, as it is all in the -doc subpackage > python3-persistent-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-persistent-doc/_static/jquery.js See above > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM > --------------------------------- > --- /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-23 17:08:10.826578039 +0200 > +++ /home/bmorbach/fedora-review/1102950-python-persistent/srpm-unpacked/python-persistent.spec 2014-06-03 18:34:10.000000000 +0200 > @@ -45,8 +45,4 @@ > BuildArch: noarch > > -# Can be removed once Fedora 20 reaches EOL > -Obsoletes: python-ZODB3-devel < 3.11.0-1%{?dist} > -Provides: python-ZODB3-devel = %{version}-%{release} > - > %description devel > Header files for building applications that use %{name}. Not sure what went wrong here Requires -------- python-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-persistent python3-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python3-persistent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-zope-interface(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-persistent-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent python-persistent-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-persistent > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.so > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.so > python-persistent: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/_timestamp.cpython-34m.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.cpython-34m.so > python3-persistent: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/persistent/cPickleCache.cpython-34m.so These are fine as they are python extensions Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/persistent/persistent-4.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 678902217c5370d33694c6dc95b89e1e6284b4dc41f04c056326194a3f6f3e22 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 -- 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