https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239008 Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ---> * Please BR: python2-devel * Consider building a Python3-package. ===== 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1239008-bumpversion/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ---> Patch0: Is of unknown origin… Other concerns about that see later on. [-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> Macros are used, but they are deprecated. Use the corresponding python2_*-macros instead. [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ---> Python-packages are to be prefixed with python{,3}. [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 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Severe issues are present. ;( [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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ---> See BR: python2-devel and macros. [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. ---> License-file is missing in upstream-tarball. Please contact upstream about it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> files in %{_bindir} should require /usr/bin/python{2,3}. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. ---> There is a license-file included using Patch0. I do not know where it comes from. Never ever do it that way! A better way is to include the file as Source1 and with *FULL* url to upstreams repo, e.g. `https://raw.githubusercontent.com/peritus/bumpversion/master/LICENSE.rst` Using `spectool -g $specfile` will download the file then and we have a reliable hint, where it comes from and whether it is legitimate. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ---> See above. [-]: 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: bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm bumpversion-0.5.3-1.fc23.src.rpm bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- bumpversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bumpversion 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- bumpversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) Provides -------- bumpversion: bumpversion Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bumpversion/bumpversion-0.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6744c873dd7aafc24453d8b6a1a0d6d109faf63cd0cd19cb78fd46e74932c77e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1239008 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Solution ======== NOT approved. Please fix those issues and I'll take another look. -- 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