https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215732 --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- fedora-review output: Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.pypy3 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files pypy3-devel.i686: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d /macros.pypy3 I think it's a left-over from when the file was in /etc. The user is not supposed to modify anything in /usr. - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions See below. - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: pypy3-libs : /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/testcapi_long.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Hm, don't know what to think about this. /usr/lib/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_testcapimodule.c and /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/testcapi_long.h look misplaced. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Please change BR:python-devel to BR:python2-devel. - 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 LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text False positive. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "zlib/libpng". 3814 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1215732-pypy3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. It's documented in LICENSE file itself. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, → OK /usr/lib/rpm, → OK /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0 → should be owned [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. Might be worth adding a desktop file with pypy3 in a terminal. But that's for another day. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 (afaict :)) [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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 [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. Note: Test run failed [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. Note: Test run failed [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: Test run failed ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pypy3-libs OK. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define gcrootfinder_options --gcrootfinder=shadowstack, %define gcrootfinder_options %{nil} Looks like this could be changed to %global. [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. ===== 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: pypy3-2.4.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm pypy3-libs-2.4.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm pypy3-devel-2.4.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm pypy3-2.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm pypy3.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pypy3 Upstream ships a man page, it would be nice to build it. And what about documentation in general? Shouldn't it be built? pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/keycert2.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/nokia.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/keycert.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/sha256.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/https_svn_python_org_root.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/badkey.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/nullcert.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/ssl_cert.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/badcert.pem pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/test/zipdir.zip OK, just for testing. pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_tkinter/__pycache__/_cffi__gba38fc1bx3406ff50.pypy3-24.so 0775L pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge1c56825x576c1bb2.pypy3-24.so 0775L pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge62e22e3x1211b795.pypy3-24.so 0775L pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__g93a4bf4dxace1544d.pypy3-24.so 0775L Those should be 0755..., but nobody cares anyway. pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_testcapimodule.c pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/testcapi_long.h As noted above, this looks strange. pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib-python/3/idlelib/idle.bat OK. pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_pypy_interact.py.orig Hm, this looks like a bug in %autosetup. Maybe you can add '-S git' to %autosetup. pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge1c56825x576c1bb2.c pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__g93a4bf4dxace1544d.c pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_ctypes_test.c pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_tkinter/__pycache__/_cffi__gba38fc1bx3406ff50.c pypy3-libs.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge62e22e3x1211b795.c Hm, those look strange too. It's probably not worth fighting the upstream build system on those though, they are harmless and small. pypy3-libs.x86_64: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/ctypes_config_cache/__init__.pyc 2015-04-27T15:41:37 /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/ctypes_config_cache/__init__.py 2015-04-27T17:26:45 Probably a false positive, confused by non-python bytecode. pypy3-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib OK. pypy3-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Right, maybe it should be built? pypy3.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/downloads/pypy3-2.4.0-src.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Works for me. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 21 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- pypy3-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python Hm, this seems to come from /usr/lib/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/ctypes_config_cache/rebuild.py, which seems to be an internal script (it contains 'import py') to be run in the build tree. I think it should be removed from the binary package. emacs-filesystem libc.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpanel.so.5()(64bit) libsqlite3.so.0()(64bit) libtcl8.6.so()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libtk8.6.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) pypy3-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(pypy3-devel) pypy3(x86-64) pypy3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) pypy3-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- pypy3-libs: pypy3-libs pypy3-libs(x86-64) pypy3-devel: config(pypy3-devel) pypy3-devel pypy3-devel(x86-64) pypy3: pypy3 pypy3(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- pypy3-libs: /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__g93a4bf4dxace1544d.pypy3-24.so pypy3-libs: /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge1c56825x576c1bb2.pypy3-24.so pypy3-libs: /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/__pycache__/_cffi__ge62e22e3x1211b795.pypy3-24.so pypy3-libs: /usr/lib64/pypy3-2.4.0/lib_pypy/_tkinter/__pycache__/_cffi__gba38fc1bx3406ff50.pypy3-24.so OK. Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/downloads/pypy3-2.4.0-src.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d9ba207d6eecf8a0dc4414e9f4e92db1abd143e8cc6ec4a6bdcac75b29f104f3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d9ba207d6eecf8a0dc4414e9f4e92db1abd143e8cc6ec4a6bdcac75b29f104f3 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1215732 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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