https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133826 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #1) > Hello Jaroslav. Any update on that? > Sorry for delay, I was busy on RHEL-7.1 release :) I think the following is problem: RFIDIOt.py: # For non-commercial use only, the following terms apply - for all other # uses, please contact the author: This adds additional constraint to GPL and I think this is unacceptable for Fedora, please consult with fedora-legal. The same for jcopmifare.py, jcopsetatrhist.py, jcoptool.py, lfxtype.py and many others. Sometimes it is possible to convince the upstream to remove the restriction, so it's worth a try. What about pynfc, is it bundled? It seems so. Also it is under GPLv3+, so the result cannot be under GPLv2+, see the compatibility matrix: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix The same for pyandroid.py. Also I think the pyandroid is useless on fedora, so you could probably drop it. Couldn't be noarch package? It seems there is nothing arch dependent in the resulting RPM. Also in noarch case, the python libraries should be installed under /usr/lib on 64 bits, not /usr/lib64. Why it needs libnfc-devel? It seem that nothing is build from it. The same for the pcsc-lite-devel. There are CR+LF line ends in send_apdu.py, please filter it through dos2unix. There are many python tools that may cause future conflicts. You may consider adding prefix, e.g. rfidiot- to them. You could probably drop the swig version restriction from buildrequires, its too old, so it doesn't make sense in fedora. If you use RPM group, I think that Development/Libraries is not good candidate as there are mostly tools. There are spurious whitespaces in the description field and files section. Now the fedora-review results: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find README.TXT in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. See previous comments. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/rfidiot/1133826-rfidiot/licensecheck.txt See previous comments. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses fedora-review is wrong here, there is opened and approved FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. pynfc may be an issue, see previous comments. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. There is apk android binary in the sources. Maybe you could delete it in the prep to be safe. [-]: 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). This is not against guidelines, but you could be consitent, i.e.: $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - variable style vs %{buildroot} macro style [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. I didn't check all files, but if there is currently no config, it is probable that there may be one in the future, please consider adding prefix. [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. I didn't check them all, but it seems sane. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. It seems it's noarch so the debuginfo package is empty. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed It's python, so it should be OK. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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]: 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. Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Test run failed [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed Not checked. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags Long standing fedora-review bug ignored by its upstream. [-]: 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. Not fully checked. [-]: Latest version is packaged. It's git snapshot, so probably OK. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments There is no GIT/SCM URL, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control [-]: 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. It's python, so probably OK. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: rfidiot-20140811-1.git82ef9e0.fc20.x86_64.rpm rfidiot-20140811-1.git82ef9e0.fc20.src.rpm rfidiot.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnfc Probably OK rfidiot.x86_64: E: no-binary Noarch so not OK rfidiot.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pynfc.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/bin/send_apdu.py rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pn532.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pyandroid.py 0644L /usr/bin/python Remove hashbangs from site-packages. rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfidiot-cli.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ChAP.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eeprom.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writelfx.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q5reset.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary froschtest.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copytag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcoptool.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary send_apdu.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitag2reset.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pn532mitm.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testacg.sh rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifareultra.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifaresimple.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multiselect.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testlahf.sh rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary loginall.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mifarekeys.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sod.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotype.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unique.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrpkey.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary formatmifare1kvalue.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdxbnum.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cardselect.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitag2brute.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readtag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writemifare1k.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readlfx.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifare1k.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary transit.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcopmifare.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pn532emulate.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lfxtype.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary demotag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcopsetatrhist.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidprox.py rfidiot.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rfidiot-20140811.tar.gz All these warnings are probably OK. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 39 warnings. The following is the same as uninstalled RPMs, so not commenting. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint rfidiot rfidiot.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnfc rfidiot.x86_64: E: no-binary rfidiot.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pynfc.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/bin/send_apdu.py rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pn532.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rfidiot/pyandroid.py 0644L /usr/bin/python rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rfidiot-cli.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ChAP.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eeprom.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writelfx.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary q5reset.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary froschtest.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copytag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcoptool.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary send_apdu.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitag2reset.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pn532mitm.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testacg.sh rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifareultra.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifaresimple.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary multiselect.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary testlahf.sh rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary loginall.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mifarekeys.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sod.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isotype.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unique.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrpkey.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary formatmifare1kvalue.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdxbnum.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cardselect.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitag2brute.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readtag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary writemifare1k.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readlfx.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary readmifare1k.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary transit.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcopmifare.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pn532emulate.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lfxtype.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary demotag.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jcopsetatrhist.py rfidiot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hidprox.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 38 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- rfidiot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python libnfc pcsc-lite pycrypto pyscard pyserial python(abi) Seems sane. Provides -------- rfidiot: rfidiot rfidiot(x86-64) Seems sane. Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1133826 Buildroot used: fedora-20-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