https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140577 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- I only see a few issues with this package, none a MUST. 1. Please use the new %license tag; i.e., change this: %doc LICENSE README to this: %license LICENSE %doc README 2. Consider adding a %check section. It could look like this: %check export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python2_sitelib} for test in tests/test_* do %{__python2} $test done %if 0%{?with_python3} pushd %{py3dir} PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} for test in tests/test_* do %{__python3} $test done popd %endif # with_python3 This will also require some new BRs, namely numpy and python3-numpy. In fact, doing that shows that there are several types, differing between python 2 and python 3, that are not pickled correctly. Unfortunately, the %check step succeeds in spite of the pickling errors. 3. Finally, what is the rationale for not packaging the tools in %{_bindir}? If there are any conceivable users of the tools, perhaps they could be packaged in a -tools subpackage. If they are definitely not useful for the general public, then what you have already done is fine, of course. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: 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. [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 4 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 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [!]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-dill-0.2.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-dill-0.2.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-dill-0.2.1-1.fc22.src.rpm python-dill.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d python3-dill.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d python-dill.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-dill python3-dill python-dill.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d python3-dill.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-dill (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-dill (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-dill: python-dill python3-dill: python3-dill Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dill/dill-0.2.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c0223a75afeef28734c6cd1ca40bd676e010209789f2e3986bbb4ca66d3754d4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c0223a75afeef28734c6cd1ca40bd676e010209789f2e3986bbb4ca66d3754d4 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1140577 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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