https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223354 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |karlthered@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- Since this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, I hereby approve it into Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit submit a SCM request. I also suggest that you add a co-owner for this package. 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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1223354-python-appdirs/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]: 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 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. [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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]: 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: python-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-appdirs-1.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A small Python module for determining appropriate platform-specific dirs, e.g. a "user data dir" python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/appdirs.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dir -> deer, rid, Dir python-appdirs.src: E: summary-too-long C A small Python module for determining appropriate platform-specific dirs, e.g. a "user data dir" python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dirs -> rids, sirs, firs python-appdirs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dir -> deer, rid, Dir 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-appdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-appdirs: python-appdirs Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/appdirs/appdirs-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fc245efb4387a4e3e0ac8ebcc704582df7d72ff6a42a53f5600bbb18fdaadc5 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1223354 -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