https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1232433 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-certifi See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ---> Package was previously orphaned. - Package bundles cacerts (n the wrong location) - better to symlink to system cacert bundle, and add appropriate Requires. - Package contains files with shellbangs at the top which need removing - see rpmlint output below. - Other issues below. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The spec file has the License field specifying ISC as the license. But the LICENSE file in the source states: This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. So, I think the license field is incorrect. Also, the LICENSE file doesn't actually contain the full text of the license, just merely a URL to download it from. Packaging guidelines state that a full copy of the LICENSE file is included with the source, so you'll need to work with upstream to include the full license. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jgu/Fedora/1232433-python- certifi/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. The LICENSE file isn't installed (even though it has the problem mentioned above). [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Unbundling the certs will require adding an extra Require to pull in the cacerts. [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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See above. [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]: 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 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 python3-certifi [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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: [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-certifi-2015.04.28-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-certifi-2015.04.28-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-certifi-2015.04.28-1.fc22.src.rpm python-certifi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/mkcert.pem python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/cacert.pem python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/old_root.pem python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/mkcert.pem python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/cacert.pem python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/old_root.pem python3-certifi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/mkcert.pem python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/cacert.pem python3-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/old_root.pem python3-certifi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/certifi/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-certifi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/core.py 0644L /usr/bin/env python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/mkcert.pem python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/cacert.pem python-certifi.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/certifi/old_root.pem 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python3-certifi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-certifi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3 Provides -------- python3-certifi: python3-certifi python-certifi: python-certifi Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/certifi/certifi-2015.04.28.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 99785e6cf715cdcde59dee05a676e99f04835a71e7ced201ca317401c322ba96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 99785e6cf715cdcde59dee05a676e99f04835a71e7ced201ca317401c322ba96 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1232433 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 -- 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