https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134340 Eduardo Mayorga <e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga <e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Matej Stuchlik from comment #2) > (In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #1) > > - There's a test suite that you should run in %check. > > Could you please point me to the test suite? I can't seem to find it. Running $ python setup.py test only checks for dependencies, so it can be skipped. > > - python-setuptools is not a runtime dependency, so you can drop this > > Requires. > > I don't believe you're correct here, from /usr/bin/unp: > > from pkg_resources import load_entry_point > > pkg_resources is provided by setuptools. I had missed that. Sorry. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/reviews/1134340-unp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4 [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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. [-]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: 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: unp-0.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm unp-0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint unp unp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- unp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-click python3-setuptools Provides -------- unp: unp Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/unp/unp-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 234807c6db6f802cf25509dd495f7978516f1d04eecd6f0acfef0ac76cba6009 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 234807c6db6f802cf25509dd495f7978516f1d04eecd6f0acfef0ac76cba6009 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mitsuhiko/unp/a9508c8de46b58cdbfcae5c0bad65df0754e88d4/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca5da925ab8f92d6902170575b9298db099d92060a12af203d409b8d41145a6e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca5da925ab8f92d6902170575b9298db099d92060a12af203d409b8d41145a6e PACKAGE APPROVED. -- 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