https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200542 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx |sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This test run was done with version -2. The only issue I found was the name, which was fixed mid-flight. Result: package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The python2 package must be named python-productmd ===== 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /dev/shm/1200542-productmd/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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). [!]: 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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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]: 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 Note: Test run failed [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-productmd [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: productmd-1.0-2.fc23.git57efab.noarch.rpm python3-productmd-1.0-2.fc23.git57efab.noarch.rpm productmd-1.0-2.fc23.git57efab.src.rpm productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) parsers -> parser, parses, parers productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python3-productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal python3-productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers python3-productmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal productmd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) parsers -> parser, parses, parers productmd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal productmd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers productmd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal productmd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: productmd-1.0.tar.bz2 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-productmd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) productmd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-productmd: python3-productmd productmd: productmd Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1200542 -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