https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125953 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- MUST issues, in no particular order: 1. Sources used to build the package do not match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL 2. Permissions on %{python_sitearch}/smartcard/scard/_scard.so are 0775 instead of 0755. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions 3. In multiple licensing scenarios, the package must contain a comment explaining the license breakdown. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios In this case, it appears that smartcard/Observer.py and smartcard/Synchronization.py are CC-BY-SA, smartcard/ClassLoader.py is Python, and everything else is LGPLv2+. Note also that the spec file does not use the correct license names. It should read: LGPLv2+ and Python and CC-BY-SA See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing 4. The %files section contains a %defattr declaration, which is not needed on any current Fedora or EPEL release. (It is only needed for rpm versions prior to 4.4; RHEL 5.10 has rpm 4.4.2.3.) SHOULD issues, in no particular order: 5. I question the usefulness of including PKG-INFO in %doc. It is already installed where it is useful, as the python egg (i.e., it is installed as %{python_sitearch}/pyscard-1.6.16-py2.7.egg-info. 6. Speaking of %doc, would the contents of smartcard/doc be suitable? They are not currently installed in the package. 7. Since an effort is currently underway to convert packages to the new %license tag, you may as well move LICENSE from %doc to %license. 8. This package uses the old filtering scheme. The new one is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering In this case, the filter could be expressed as: %global __provides_exclude_from ^%{python_sitearch}/.*\\.so$ But even that is not needed on Fedora 20 or later, where rpm already filters out such .so files; see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/353. 9. Is there any possibility of adding a %check section that runs some or all of the tests in smartcard/test? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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: pyscard-1.6.16-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm pyscard-1.6.16-1.fc22.src.rpm pyscard.x86_64: W: invalid-license PSF pyscard.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0 pyscard.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/smartcard/scard/_scard.so 0775L pyscard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US smartcard -> smart card, smart-card, MasterCard pyscard.src: W: invalid-license PSF pyscard.src: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0 pyscard.src: W: file-size-mismatch pyscard-1.6.16.tar.gz = 186253, http://ludovic.rousseau.free.fr/softwares/pcsc-lite/pyscard-1.6.16.tar.gz = 186223 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint pyscard pyscard.x86_64: W: invalid-license PSF pyscard.x86_64: W: invalid-license CC BY-SA 3.0 pyscard.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/smartcard/scard/_scard.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- pyscard (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) pcsc-lite python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pyscard: pyscard pyscard(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pyscard: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/smartcard/scard/_scard.so Source checksums ---------------- http://ludovic.rousseau.free.fr/softwares/pcsc-lite/pyscard-1.6.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd9f39fe5e6500c9578edfc616cc4d213e952f49eb444b41e2a1978fc270eaac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ec8c45fd18f6d4e2d98a4ebae4dde444bcd727eb4d940cd3d3e65a866338a3ee diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1125953 -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