https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162484 Tomas Radej <tradej@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tradej@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tradej@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej <tradej@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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/python-unittest2 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tradej/development/reviews/1162484-python- unittest2/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 40960 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]: 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 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-unittest2 [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %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-unittest2-0.8.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-unittest2-0.8.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-unittest2-0.8.0-1.fc22.src.rpm python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US onwards -> inwards, onward, on wards python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pypy -> poppy python-unittest2.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/unittest2/test/dummy.py python-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unit2 python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US onwards -> inwards, onward, on wards python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pypy -> poppy python3-unittest2.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/unittest2/test/dummy.py python3-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-unit2 python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US onwards -> inwards, onward, on wards python-unittest2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pypy -> poppy 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 20 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-unittest2 python3-unittest2 python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US onwards -> inwards, onward, on wards python-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pypy -> puppy python-unittest2.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/unittest2/test/dummy.py python-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unit2 python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unities python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US onwards -> inwards, onward, on wards python3-unittest2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pypy -> puppy python3-unittest2.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/unittest2/test/dummy.py python3-unittest2.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python3-unit2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 14 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-unittest2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-setuptools python-six python3-unittest2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-setuptools python3-six Provides -------- python-unittest2: python-unittest2 python3-unittest2: python3-unittest2 Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/u/unittest2/unittest2-0.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb00b9c261cf3fa6b84cc3e6c3a39edf74b3140345b3f677907635a2738a7e2a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb00b9c261cf3fa6b84cc3e6c3a39edf74b3140345b3f677907635a2738a7e2a 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 1162484 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 ISSUES: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. >>>> No mention of a license found in upstream issue tracker. Would be nice. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. >>>> It is not clear from the patch that it exists only for setup.py not to >>>> fail and that only python >= 2.7 is considered. It would be nice to write >>>> it as a comment for the patch. *** APPROVED ****, but please fix these minor things. -- 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