https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188093 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | --- Comment #6 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ---> Use either one or the other… ;) ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1188093-qtile/licensecheck.txt ---> Package is not MIT-only… Please provide proper license- breakdown in spec-file. Lecensecheck.txt is attached. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/qtile-0.9.0-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/libqtile [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/libqtile, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/qtile-0.9.0-py2.7 .egg-info ---> Please change the %files-section in spec-file to fix this: -%{python2_sitelib}/qtile-%{version}-py2.7.egg-info/* -%{python2_sitelib}/libqtile/* +%{python2_sitelib}/qtile-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info +%{python2_sitelib}/libqtile [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> "py2.7.egg-info" vs. "py%{python2_version}.egg-info" [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Severe errors / issues are present… ;( [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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. [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. [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. ---> There are LICENSE-files missing for the mixed-up licensing in sources. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> Package requires /usr/bin/env. Wrong hash-bang? [?]: Package functions as described. ---> not tested, yet; packaging-issues present. [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. ---> There is test-suite provided by the package, but not run during %check. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. ---> use `install -pm` instead of simple `install -m`. [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: qtile-0.9.0-2.fc22.noarch.rpm qtile-0.9.0-2.fc22.src.rpm qtile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability -> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability qtile.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces qtile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability -> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability qtile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces, work-spaces, works paces ---> Please double-check spelling. qtile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qtile-session qtile.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qtile-run ---> Ignored. qtile.src: W: file-size-mismatch v0.9.0.tar.gz = 280935, https://github.com/qtile/qtile/archive/v0.9.0.tar.gz = 280182 ---> dafuq? Please remove the tarball in your SOURCES-dir and re-download it using `spectool -g -R ./qtile.spec`. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ---> Possibly a bug in rpmlint… :/ Requires -------- qtile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-cairocffi python-cffi python-trollius python-xcffib Provides -------- qtile: qtile Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/qtile/qtile/archive/v0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c92c089ede32643a828b19fecda1184ae21d2ec0007cbea37a2ede575ce8cc34 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a49930358b282085afe6f84800a01f7495009da4024d46a0ddceb0f287e0aed6 However, diff -r shows no differences 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 1188093 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 ===== Additional remarks ===== * Installation of man-pages in %files -%{_mandir}/man1/qsh.1.gz -%{_mandir}/man1/qtile.1.gz +%{_mandir}/man1/qsh.1.* +%{_mandir}/man1/qtile.1. ---> Compression might change on further releases. Avoid FTBFS… * Usage of %setup: -%setup -q -n qtile-%{version} +%setup -q -n qtile-%{version} ---> %setup defaults to -n %{name}-%{version} anyways. ===== Solution ===== NOT approved. Please fix those issues and I'll have another look. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- 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