https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778 --- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch <chrisdersch@xxxxxxxxx> --- First review done, package looks already nice, just minor fixes required :) Greetings, Christian Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions ====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ====> We package for Python here and get unversioned so-files from this [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. ====> Please ask upstream to include a license file :) [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". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/packaging/1155778-python-regex/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4 ====> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112409 => Is OK [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.4 ====> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112409 => Is OK [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 184320 bytes in 6 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]: 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]: 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: [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ====> Already mentioned above: Please contact upstream :) [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-regex ====> This is the python3 package, doesn't require the one for py2 [x]: 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. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-regex-2014.10.09-1.fc22.src.rpm python-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so 0775L python3-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. ====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python3-regex python-regex python3-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so 0775L python-regex.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ====> Please fix this using '%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*' at end of %install section Requires -------- python3-regex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-regex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-regex: python3-regex python3-regex(x86-64) python-regex: python-regex python-regex(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-regex: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_regex.so python3-regex: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_regex.cpython-34m.so ====> Normal behaviour in case of Python packages Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/r/regex/regex-2014.10.09.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6bd9370eb7ee4163ab8912c5e3597d8b5b9061de820fc482d85c1e42b9d7d7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6bd9370eb7ee4163ab8912c5e3597d8b5b9061de820fc482d85c1e42b9d7d7d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1155778 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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