https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198760 --- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz <rebus@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, generaly most of the checks are OK. I have identified these issues: 1) Licenses/budled libraries Package contains bundled libraries. I believe that html2text is problem even from the licensing point of view. My recommendation is to: - unbundle html2text and pyparsig - which already have separate package - agree with bluefish maintainer on unbundling js-beautify/jsbeautifier - tneststring and wbxml - it would be probably best to ask mitmproxy author on what would be the effort needed to unbundle those 2) Source checksums - when checking the MD5 I have noticed that source on github and upstream website are different. Packages seems to be same, but probably repacked on different platform. - Please can you inform the upstream about this issue? 3) Man pages - this falls to the "should" not must category so it would not be blocking the package approval. - Please any chance getting the man-pages from the Debian package and try to push it upstream? Best regards Michal Ambroz Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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. - MIT [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 114 files have unknown license. - BSD - for example libmproxy/web/static/vendor.js - GPLv3 - libmproxy/contrib/html2text.py [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. - pyparsing /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/libmproxy/contrib/pyparsing.py - there is already package pyparsing - GPLv3 - libmproxy/contrib/html2text.py - https://github.com/aaronsw/html2text - there is already package python-html2text - MITM - jsbeautifier - https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify - part of bluefish-shared-data package (probably issue there as well) - libmproxy/tnetstring.py - https://github.com/rfk/tnetstring - wbxml - libmproxy/contrib/wbxml - https://github.com/davidpshaw/PyWBXMLDecoder [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. [-]: 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 61440 bytes in 25 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - changing shebang in some python scripts is changing timestamp, but those files are really changed so I guess that is fine [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. - false positive spelling errors - can be ignored - man pages - ay chance to take manpages from Debian package and ask upstream to add those? [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mitmproxy-0.12.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mitmproxy-0.12.1-1.fc21.src.rpm mitmproxy.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> Dumpster mitmproxy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mitmproxy mitmproxy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mitmweb mitmproxy.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mitmdump mitmproxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mitmdump -> dumdum mitmproxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcpdump -> Dumpster mitmproxy.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmproxy -> improbably 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Requires -------- mitmproxy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 protobuf pyamf pyasn1 python(abi) python-cssutils python-flask python-urwid Provides -------- mitmproxy: mitmproxy Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/m/mitmproxy/mitmproxy-0.12.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a7a59faa1f79a97c5cbd7acdaca72cfbf9903b9e39823226bc5d8a30efc07e70 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a7a59faa1f79a97c5cbd7acdaca72cfbf9903b9e39823226bc5d8a30efc07e70 -- 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