https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200119 --- Comment #5 from David Shea <dshea@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Looks good with those changes. 5. Include the text of your review in a comment in the ticket. For easy readability, simply use a regular comment instead of an attachment. Ok, package review process, here comes some text: 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: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/dshea/rpmbuild/python3-pocketlint/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > Yes, because I changed the source file, per comment 4 - 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > haha, someone didn't update for %license ===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dshea/rpmbuild/python3-pocketlint/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [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. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [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). Rpmlint ------- > None of this worthy of note: Checking: python3-pocketlint-0.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-pocketlint-0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm python3-pocketlint.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-polib python3-pocketlint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pylint -> plinth python3-pocketlint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Addon -> Ad don, Ad-don, Add on python3-pocketlint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pylint -> plinth python3-pocketlint.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-pocketlint.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pylint -> plinth python3-pocketlint.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Addon -> Ad don, Ad-don, Add on python3-pocketlint.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pylint -> plinth python3-pocketlint.src: W: file-size-mismatch pocketlint-0.1.tar.gz = 21682, https://github.com/rhinstaller/pocketlint/archive/0.1/pocketlint-0.1.tar.gz = 20959 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-pocketlint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-polib python3-pylint python3-six Provides -------- python3-pocketlint: python3-pocketlint Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rhinstaller/pocketlint/archive/0.1/pocketlint-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82fd7e72544e88ece1148c3ded2f3a310ffb735f088089a940122d6901c88b45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39b6293528b439af6d51cb8b8a9eab6eb10fbd4c4fc922d3d07923344cada2d3 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn SRPMS/python3-pocketlint-0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm 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