[Bug 1174893] Review Request: dnf-plugins-extras - Extras Plugins for DNF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174893

Radek Holy <rholy@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo+



--- Comment #1 from Radek Holy <rholy@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Basically I believe at least the file ownership, the require and the changelog
need to be fixed. But of course it would be nice if the "SHOULD items" could be
fixed too:

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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.
[!]: 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/dnf-plugins, /usr/lib/python3.4
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
     /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dnf-plugins,
     /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Note: Missing email address.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
     Note: I believe that python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper should require
python3-dbus.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common owns
%{python3_sitelib}/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/ that is also owned by
python3-dnf-plugins-core.
[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:
[-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
     Note: I believe that python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper should require
python3-dbus.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
     Note: I was not able to create a working setup so far. I'll test the
package in the next round.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
     Note: no tests included
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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.
[!]: SourceX is a working URL.
     Note: invalid-url Source0: dnf-plugins-extras-478969e.tar.xz
[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: dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper-0.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dnf-plugins-extras-0.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyc
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnfpluginsextras/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-34.pyo
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyo
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: E: python-bytecode-wrong-magic-value
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/dnf-plugins/__pycache__/snapper.cpython-34.pyc
expected 3260 (3.4), found 3310 (unknown)
dnf-plugins-extras.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
dnf-plugins-extras-478969e.tar.xz
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint dnf-plugins-extras-snapper dnf-plugins-extras-comm 
on python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common
python3- 
dnf-plugins-extras dnf-plugins-extras
dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
dnf-plugins-extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dbus-python
    dnf-plugins-extras-common
    python(abi)
    snapper

dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dnf
    python(abi)

python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dbus-python
    python(abi)
    python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common
    snapper

python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-dnf

python3-dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper

dnf-plugins-extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    dnf-plugins-extras-snapper



Provides
--------
dnf-plugins-extras-snapper:
    dnf-plugins-extras-snapper

dnf-plugins-extras-common:
    dnf-plugins-extras-common

python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper:
    python3-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper

python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common:
    python3-dnf-plugins-extras-common

python3-dnf-plugins-extras:
    python3-dnf-plugins-extras

dnf-plugins-extras:
    dnf-plugins-extras



Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1174893 -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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]