https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228942 --- Comment #5 from Eduardo Mayorga <e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines This is because python-frappe-bench has not been imported yet, so we can ignore this one. - There are bundled libraries. nodejs-prism: frappe-5.1.3/frappe/public/js/lib/prism.js nodejs-flot: frappe-5.1.3/frappe/public/js/lib/flot/excanvas.js nodejs-beautify: frappe-5.1.3/frappe/public/js/lib/beautify-html.js python-minify: frappe-5.1.3/frappe/utils/minify.py ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 558 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mayorga/1228942-python-frappe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 files. [!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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 python- frappe-filesystem [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. [-]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.10 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.10 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.10 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/mayorga/1228942-python-frappe/results/python-frappe-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/mayorga/1228942-python-frappe/results/python-frappe-filesystem-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 23 install /home/mayorga/1228942-python-frappe/results/python-frappe-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/mayorga/1228942-python-frappe/results/python-frappe-filesystem-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-frappe-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-frappe-filesystem-5.1.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-frappe-5.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm python-frappe.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-var frappe-bench python-frappe-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation python-frappe-filesystem.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-var frappe-bench 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python-frappe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh babel ipython open-sans-fonts python(abi) python-click python-cssmin python-dateutil python-dropbox python-email_reply_parser python-frappe-bench python-frappe-filesystem python-geoip-geolite2 python-gunicorn python-html2text python-markdown2 python-mysql python-num2words python-pdfkit python-redis python-selenium python-semantic_version python-slugify python-termcolor python-werkzeug python-xhtml2pdf shadow-utils systemd python-frappe-filesystem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python-frappe: python-frappe python-frappe-filesystem: python-frappe-filesystem Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/frappe/frappe/archive/v5.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de67880def2ba025aecf88a00f75344448592d5ddbb01166f6a25ebce04630a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de67880def2ba025aecf88a00f75344448592d5ddbb01166f6a25ebce04630a0 -- 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