https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193986 --- Comment #3 from Victoria Martinez de la Cruz <vimartin@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Pranav Kant from comment #2) > This is an unofficial review only. > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > Issues: > ======= > - Package doesn't installs properly in my case. > - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Please be consistent with only one of them. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros > - Please use %license for your LICENSE file. This has changed rececntly. > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ > Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image > - You are using too much asterisks in your description of the spec file. > The description in your summary makes extensive use of asterisks. Please > note that these are not translated to anything. So, IMHO, their use should > be minimal in spec file. > > ===== 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. > Note: Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". > 21 files have unknown license. > [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. > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > I am not sure about this. But your spec file makes considerable use of > hard-coded directory names. Though, I see no advantage of using macros > in > this case, so this might be ok. > [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. > [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > See Issues above. > [-]: 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. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one > supported primary architecture. > [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 %license. > See Issues above. > [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 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 > [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 > > ===== 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). > [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. > See Issues above. Wrapping words with asterisks (*) won't mark them for > translation. > [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: > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Mock build failed in my case. > [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. > > > Installation errors > ------------------- > INFO: mock.py version 1.2.6 starting (python version = 2.7.8)... > Start: init plugins > INFO: selinux enabled > Finish: init plugins > Start: run > Start: chroot init > INFO: calling preinit hooks > INFO: enabled root cache > INFO: enabled yum cache > Start: cleaning yum metadata > Finish: cleaning yum metadata > INFO: enabled ccache > Mock Version: 1.2.6 > INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.6 > Finish: chroot init > INFO: installing package(s): > /home/fedora/1193986-openstack-rally/results/openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21. > noarch.rpm > ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. > # /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-21-x86_64/root/ > --releasever 21 install > /home/fedora/1193986-openstack-rally/results/openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21. > noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm > openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm > openstack-rally.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/bash_completion.d/rally.bash_completion > openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally-manage > openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally > openstack-rally.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rally-api > openstack-rally.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > > > > Requires > -------- > openstack-rally (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /bin/sh > /usr/bin/python2 > python(abi) > python-babel > python-decorator > python-fixtures > python-iso8601 > python-jinja2 > python-jsonschema > python-netaddr > python-openstack-ceilometerclient > python-openstack-cinderclient > python-openstack-designateclient > python-openstack-glanceclient > python-openstack-heatclient > python-openstack-ironicclient > python-openstack-keystoneclient > python-openstack-neutronclient > python-openstack-novaclient > python-openstack-saharaclient > python-openstack-troveclient > python-openstack-zaqarclient > python-oslo-config > python-oslo-db > python-oslo-i18n > python-oslo-serialization > python-oslo-utils > python-paramiko > python-pecan > python-prettytable > python-psycopg2 > python-pyyaml > python-requests > python-six > python-sphinx > python-sqlalchemy > python-subunit > python-wsme > > > > Provides > -------- > openstack-rally: > openstack-rally > > Looks OK. > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://tarballs.openstack.org/rally/rally-0.0.1.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a5eec9c78121d64c320e73036f353c2609e532698f35e1d54f4b0f1624d19e43 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a5eec9c78121d64c320e73036f353c2609e532698f35e1d54f4b0f1624d19e43 Thanks for the review! I fixed the issues you pointed out. Running mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm and mock -r fedora-21-x86_64 openstack-rally-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm successfully. How did you run mock? -- 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