https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241919 --- Comment #31 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Ah, turns out I did miss one thing. There are two license files, you need to include them both as one of the files is under the Python license (see below) [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1241919 -python-line_profiler/licensecheck.txt => Missing license declaration - should be BSD and Python add a comment above License: to specify which file is which (per LICENSE_Python.txt, timers.c is under Python license) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. note - need to install LICENSE_Python.txt as well Also, before I forget, since this package was previously retired, once this review is approved the next step is a bit different: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions => False positive, when building under mock somehow the permission on executables is 775 instead of 755 - 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-line_profiler See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names => Known, that package was retired ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1241919 -python-line_profiler/licensecheck.txt => Missing license declaration - should be BSD and Python add a comment above License: to specify which file is which (per LICENSE_Python.txt, timers.c is under Python license) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. note - need to install LICENSE_Python.txt as well [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-libs) => should be OK, this is because the Py3 subpackage puts files in site-packages directly, not under its own module with its __init__.py [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 40960 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: 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. [x]: %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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-line_profiler-1.0-5.fc22.x86_64.rpm python3-line_profiler-1.0-5.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-line_profiler-1.0-5.fc22.src.rpm python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cProfile -> c Profile, profile, profiterole python-line_profiler.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_line_profiler.so 775 python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof-2.7 python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kernprof -> ovenproof python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cProfile -> c Profile, profile, profiterole python3-line_profiler.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_line_profiler.cpython-34m.so 775 python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof-3.4 python-line_profiler.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kernprof -> ovenproof python-line_profiler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cProfile -> c Profile, profile, profiterole 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 14 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-line_profiler-debuginfo-1.0-5.fc22.x86_64.rpm python-line_profiler-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kernprof -> ovenproof python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cProfile -> c Profile, profile, profiterole python3-line_profiler.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_line_profiler.cpython-34m.so 775 python3-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof-3.4 python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cProfile -> c Profile, profile, profiterole python-line_profiler.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_line_profiler.so 775 python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof-2.7 python-line_profiler.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernprof python-line_profiler-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled python-line_profiler-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US profiler -> profile, profiles, profiled 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings. Requires -------- python3-line_profiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3 rtld(GNU_HASH) python-line_profiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python2 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-line_profiler: python3-line_profiler python3-line_profiler(x86-64) python-line_profiler: python-line_profiler python-line_profiler(x86-64) python2-line_profiler Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-line_profiler: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_line_profiler.so python3-line_profiler: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/_line_profiler.cpython-34m.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/l/line_profiler/line_profiler-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9e0c9ffa814f1215107c86c890afa8e63bec5a37d951f6f9d3668c1df2b1900 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9e0c9ffa814f1215107c86c890afa8e63bec5a37d951f6f9d3668c1df2b1900 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1241919 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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