https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127212 --- Comment #5 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Manual Review ============= TL;DR: Looks good. Just one question in comment #4 about "Requiring Base Package". Notes from manual review: - ASL 2.0 License - Refer comment #3 for License clarification - -doc subpackage exists - %check: OpenStack tests have a lot of dependencies, current plan is to include them once they're sorted out. MUST items ---------- 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. - ASL 2.0 [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)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-oslo-utils/licensecheck.txt - Refer comment #3 for NOTES [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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-config) [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. - -doc subpackage exists. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines 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. egg-info for the package: ---- $ tree rpms-unpacked/python-oslo-utils-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oslo.utils-0.1.1-py2.7.egg-info/ rpms-unpacked/python-oslo-utils-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/oslo.utils-0.1.1-py2.7.egg-info/ ├── dependency_links.txt ├── namespace_packages.txt ├── not-zip-safe ├── PKG-INFO ├── SOURCES.txt └── top_level.txt ---- [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- oslo-utils-doc [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - No arch package [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. - The OpenStack tests have a lot of dependencies, current plan is to include them once the deps are sorted out. [-]: 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