https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134742 --- Comment #6 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Summary: Looks good; approved. (Jamie addressed the issues from comment #4.) Rest of human review -------------------- ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-requests-mock/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4 - Standard directories, this is fine. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4 * Standard directories, so this is fine [-]: 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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files. * No -doc subpackage is necessary [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/python3-requests-mock-0.5.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/requests_mock-0.5.1-py3.4.egg-info/ ./rpms-unpacked/python3-requests-mock-0.5.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/requests_mock-0.5.1-py3.4.egg-info/ ├── dependency_links.txt ├── not-zip-safe ├── PKG-INFO ├── requires.txt ├── 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3 -requests-mock [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. * noarch package [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Rpmlint is happy too: $ rpmlint python-requests-mock.spec ../SRPMS/python-requests-mock-0.5.1-2.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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