https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103420 --- Comment #13 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Issues: 1. The package Requires are not right. The Requires that should be in the python3 subpackage are in the main package instead. But the Requires declaration for the python3 subpackage under "%package -n python3-autowrap". 2. Having said that, why are python2-devel/python3-devel needed? I can see the need for Cython and boost-devel, but why pythonX-devel? 3. I am not convinced that this package should be archful. What can go wrong if it is noarch? Also, rpmdiff shows that the only differences between i386 and x86_64 builds are in the byte compiled python files, which is probably just timestamp differences. So if something can go wrong if the package is noarch, then I believe that same thing will go wrong with the package as it is currently constituted. (Note also that the files are installed in %{pythonX_sitelib}, which is for non-arch-specific modules; they would go in %{pythonX_sitearch} otherwise.) 4. I question the usefulness of including CONCEPT and README_DEVELOP in %doc. Those do not seem to provide any information that users of this package will need. 5. The entry "%{__python3}-autowrap" in the python3 %files section is, in my opinion, an abuse of the %{__python3} macro. Please change that to read "%{_bindir}/python3-autowrap". 6. What is the purpose of the "find ... | sed ..." invocations in %prep? As far as I can see, they do exactly nothing. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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. [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. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 10 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]: 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. [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: [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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]: 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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.x86_64.rpm autowrap-0.5.0-2.20140603git1753b9.fc22.src.rpm autowrap.x86_64: E: devel-dependency boost-devel autowrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod autowrap.x86_64: E: no-binary autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-autowrap autowrap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint autowrap python3-autowrap autowrap.x86_64: E: devel-dependency boost-devel autowrap.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pxd -> pd, pad, pod autowrap.x86_64: E: no-binary autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary autowrap python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/autowrap/data_files/autowrap_tools.hpp python3-autowrap.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-autowrap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 Cython boost-devel python(abi) python2-devel python3-Cython python3-devel python3-autowrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- autowrap: autowrap autowrap(x86-64) python3-autowrap: python3-autowrap python3-autowrap(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/uweschmitt/autowrap/archive/1753b9bf044559e18ca1ed39914405a2f8b4fca3.zip#/autowrap-1753b9bf044559e18ca1ed39914405a2f8b4fca3.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55437ff3b792633c188bd49d84e21ba0672c2f274b91da01571274b9017b1409 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55437ff3b792633c188bd49d84e21ba0672c2f274b91da01571274b9017b1409 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1103420 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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