https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230968 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== ISSUES: 1) Summary and description don't convey enough information 2) Although the project contains the MIT license for the project, none of the project source files carry a copyright header to that effect. Please work with upstream to get that rectified. Contents of licensecheck.txt (generated by fedora-review): Unknown or generated -------------------- livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/__init__.py livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/cli.py livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/handlers.py livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/server.py livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/vendors/livereload.js livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/livereload/watcher.py livereload-2.4.0/%{py3dir}/setup.py livereload-2.4.0/livereload/__init__.py livereload-2.4.0/livereload/cli.py livereload-2.4.0/livereload/handlers.py livereload-2.4.0/livereload/server.py livereload-2.4.0/livereload/vendors/livereload.js livereload-2.4.0/livereload/watcher.py livereload-2.4.0/setup.py 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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1230968-python- livereload/licensecheck.txt But see above: the files themselves really should contain a license header. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [x]: 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 python3-livereload [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) I am reviewing the spec file included in the SRPM. As a point of reference, the SPEC file in the BZ ticket should always match that included in the SRPM. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-livereload-2.4.0-.fc22.1.noarch.rpm python3-livereload-2.4.0-.fc22.1.noarch.rpm python-livereload-2.4.0-.fc22.1.src.rpm python-livereload.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary livereload python3-livereload.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary livereload 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These are all fine. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-livereload.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary livereload python3-livereload.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary livereload 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jgu/Fedora/1230968-python-livereload/srpm/python-livereload.spec 2015-06-15 10:31:33.501294188 +0100 +++ /home/jgu/Fedora/1230968-python-livereload/srpm-unpacked/python-livereload.spec 2015-06-11 22:34:42.000000000 +0100 @@ -10,5 +10,5 @@ Name: python-%{pypi_name} Version: 2.4.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: %{?dist}.1 Summary: Tool for web developers @@ -97,5 +97,5 @@ %changelog * Thu Jun 11 2015 William Moreno Reyes <williamjmorenor at gmail.com> -- 2.4.0-1 +- 2.4.0-.1 - Initial packaging Requires -------- python-livereload (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-six python-tornado python3-livereload (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-six python3-tornado Provides -------- python-livereload: python-livereload python3-livereload: python3-livereload Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/livereload/livereload-2.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 662e422406184ad0b764bce464742cc2b9a0e7184e684b1b500af03d88ecf40d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 662e422406184ad0b764bce464742cc2b9a0e7184e684b1b500af03d88ecf40d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1230968 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 So, in summary, you need to 1) update Summary and descriptions to be more useful. 2) Have upstream add license headers to all the files for clarification. Item 2 seems not to be mandated by the packaging guidelines as far as I can see, so I won't hold off on approval of that, but please do report it upstream. You may want to simplify the spec file by removing all the py3 conditional stuff, but I'm not insisting on that as it does no harm, and actually I see some of it is from the example spec in the python packaging guidelines. -- 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