https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248100 --- Comment #13 from Alan Conway <aconway@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1061750 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1061750&action=edit fedora-review files Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Noted by aconway ---------------- - /usr/bin/qpid-python-test is not a user executable, don't package or package under libexec. Summary of fedora-review failed manual checks --------------------------------------------- MUST [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/qpid aconway: I think this directory should be owned by the python-qpid package? SHOULD [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. aconway: LICENSE.txt is not from upstream, but I don't see why this is an issue. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. aconway: there's no %check. Manual tests look OK. fedora-review automatic issues ------------------------------ - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/aconway/tmp/review/review-python-qpid/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - 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-qpid See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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: "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/aconway/tmp/review/review-python-qpid/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/qpid [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [X]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X]: Development files must be in a -devel package (aconway: does not apply to python libraries) [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. [X]: 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. [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 3 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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). [X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- qpid-common OK: main package depends on subpackage, not vice-versa. [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]: 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-qpid-0.32-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-qpid-common-0.32-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-qpid-0.32-2.fc22.src.rpm python-qpid.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qpid-python-test python-qpid-common.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-qpid.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qpid-python-test python-qpid-common.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python-qpid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python python(abi) python-qpid-common python-saslwrapper python-qpid-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env python(abi) Provides -------- python-qpid: python-qpid python-qpid-common: python-qpid-common Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/qpid/0.32/qpid-python-0.32.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 646bb803907681f64dbe831cb1664d2ec8936c3759548f721b9a7c349f740d26 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3b9a3cf9be1f55a4f6ad028c30736f7888cb82dbc13f68846554ebe7c0b30f6 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-qpid 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