https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126796 --- Comment #5 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Manual Package Review ===================== Summary: Looks good; approved. Notes: 1. License comments are addressed by Alan in comment #4 2. rpmlint spelling mistakes can be ignored for technical terms 3. %check -- Upstream doesn't provide tests yet. For now, we can proceed without it as it's not mandatory in Fedora guidelines MUST items ---------- Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable [x]:Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - ASL 2.0 License [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Apache (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/python-oslo- db/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. - No subpackages [x]: 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/oslo(python-oslo-messaging, python-oslo-config, python-oslo- i18n, python-oslo-rootwrap, python-oslo-sphinx) [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [x ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. - -doc subpackage exists 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-db-doc [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. - Upstream does not provide tests yet. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -- 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