https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310 --- Comment #23 from Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: 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]: 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. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [-]: Buildroot is not present [-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: 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. [?]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-libnacl-1.3.5-1.fc22.src.rpm python-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 23 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-libnacl python3-libnacl python-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-libnacl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libsodium python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ctypes -> types, c types python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bernstein's -> Bern stein's, Bern-stein's, Bernstein python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nacl -> nail, natl, manacle python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tweetnacl -> tweeter python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit python3-libnacl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-libnacl.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 16 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-libnacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsodium python(abi) python3-libnacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsodium python(abi) Provides -------- python-libnacl: python-libnacl python3-libnacl: python3-libnacl ============== Comments: * Buildroot, clean, defattr, etc are only needed in EPEL. As you are using the same spec for Rawhide and EL6, I think we are safe ignoring the fedora-review complains. * We can ignore the rpmlint complain about "explicit-lib-dependency", as the program uses ctypes, the library name has to be explicit. * In the tarball there is 'tests' subdirectory. If would be nice to run the tests in %check (but it is not mandatory) * The remaining problem is about missing LICENSE. The license file *must* be included in %doc if present. Could you add a %doc section (for both python2 and python3 packages) and include LICENSE there? I would include README.rst and AUTHORS also. -- 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