https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218127 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- +1 trivial things like that could be fixed at import time. Since this package complies with Fedora Packaging guidelines, I hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a SCM request. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1218127-pagure/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pagure- milters [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate [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: pagure-0.1.2-2.fc23.noarch.rpm pagure-milters-0.1.2-2.fc23.noarch.rpm pagure-0.1.2-2.fc23.src.rpm pagure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/hooks/files/post-receive 0644L /bin/bash pagure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/pagure/pagure_createdb.py 0644L /usr/bin/env pagure.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/static/emoji/emojione.sprites.css pagure.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/hooks/debug.pyc pagure-milters.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister, Miller, Filter pagure-milters.noarch: W: no-documentation pagure-milters.noarch: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/pagure 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- pagure (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env config(pagure) gitolite mod_wsgi python(abi) python-alembic python-arrow python-blinker python-chardet python-docutils python-fedora python-flask python-flask-wtf python-markdown python-munch python-openid python-openid-cla python-openid-teams python-psutil python-pygit2 python-pygments python-sqlalchemy python-straight-plugin python-wtforms pagure-milters (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh postfix python-pymilter systemd Provides -------- pagure: config(pagure) pagure pagure-milters: pagure-milters Source checksums ---------------- https://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/a/pagure/pagure-0.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 487eedb5b1b4b4fe9c613421478137edff3a24fe6f5eae276e74d948cf0ef96c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 487eedb5b1b4b4fe9c613421478137edff3a24fe6f5eae276e74d948cf0ef96c -- 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