https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102950 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the review, Benedikt. (In reply to Benedikt Morbach from comment #2) > [!]: 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/) The jquery situation is a little bit of a mess. The source tarball does not include jquery, but it is inserted into the final binary package by python-sphinx. There is an effort under way to let packages like this one share a jquery implementation; see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/jQuery. Once that work lands in Rawhide, I will switch over to it, and there will be no jquery file in this package any more. > [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. Yes, the python3-libs package owns all 3 directories. I do not know why fedora-review is complaining. I have filed this as bug 1112409. > [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > > --> I think python doesn't do that, but can the docs be built in > parallel? Actually, if you look in the build log, you'll see that the C files are built with the normal Fedora CFLAGS. But you seem to be talking about make's -j flag, invoked with the %{?_smp_mflags} macro. I could add it, but it wouldn't have any effect. There is only one make target, which invokes sphinxbuild, so there is nothing to parallelize. > [!]: 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 Right. > [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 I have filed this as bug 1112410. > > 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? This is bug 1102846, which doesn't appear to have a fix backported to Fedora 20. > > 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 That just means that I'm an idiot. :-) I made a last minute change to the spec file, rebuilt, pushed the new spec file to my web page and forgot to push the newly built source RPM as well. I have fixed that now. Thanks for catching this mistake. -- 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