[Bug 1139066] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1139066

Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
hi Matěj!


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
[ ] Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[ ] Package do not use a name that already exist
    Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
    https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jbrout
    See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
   ---> Do you want to retire it?
[ ] Please remove the ls in %build
[ ] You missed to add your changes in the %changelog
[ ] From lint:
    jbrout.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jbrout/jbrout/pyexiv.py.noPyexiv2Warn 0644L /usr/bin/env



===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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).
[!]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: 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]: 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
     file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7557773
[-]: %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]: 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).
     Note: Multiple Release: tags found
[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: jbrout-0.3.338-0.10.svn338.fc22.noarch.rpm
          jbrout-0.3.338-0.10.svn338.fc22.src.rpm
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygtk -> Pygmy
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpeg -> peg, j peg, Peg
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US textfile -> textile,
text file, text-file
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpserver -> timeserver
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flickr -> flick,
flicker, flicks
jbrout.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://jbrout.manatlan.com/ HTTP Error 405:
Method Not Allowed
jbrout.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jbrout/jbrout/pyexiv.py.noPyexiv2Warn 0644L /usr/bin/env
jbrout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jbrout
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygtk -> Pygmy
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpeg -> peg, j peg, Peg
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US textfile -> textile, text
file, text-file
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpserver -> timeserver
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile
jbrout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flickr -> flick, flicker,
flicks
jbrout.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://jbrout.manatlan.com/ HTTP Error 405:
Method Not Allowed
jbrout.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{revno}
jbrout.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jbrout.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 19 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jbrout
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pygtk -> Pygmy
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpeg -> peg, j peg, Peg
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US textfile -> textile,
text file, text-file
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml,
ht-ml
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpserver -> timeserver
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xmlfile -> misfile
jbrout.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flickr -> flick,
flicker, flicks
jbrout.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://jbrout.manatlan.com/ HTTP Error 405:
Method Not Allowed
jbrout.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/jbrout/jbrout/pyexiv.py.noPyexiv2Warn 0644L /usr/bin/env
jbrout.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jbrout
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
jbrout (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    fbida
    perl-Image-ExifTool
    pyexiv2
    pygtk2
    python
    python-gdata
    python-imaging
    python-lxml



Provides
--------
jbrout:
    application()
    application(jbrout.desktop)
    jbrout



Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1139066
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, 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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]