https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154218 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |panemade@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #19 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1154218 -graphite-api/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ==> You need to add license file to -doc subpackage [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). ==> But there is one thing "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros says that "Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is acceptable." so don't use macro __mkdir_p and __install [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ==> You may want to use newer python macros as you targeted this package for Fedora versions. [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ===> I don't know why this appeared in review.txt, also I see fedora-review have not ran fonts plugin and no font related directory or files generated in review directory so I assume this as false positive. [-]: 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 graphite-api-doc [?]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: graphite-api-1.0.1-4.20150702gitbe7907c.fc24.noarch.rpm graphite-api-doc-1.0.1-4.20150702gitbe7907c.fc24.noarch.rpm graphite-api-1.0.1-4.20150702gitbe7907c.fc24.src.rpm graphite-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyanite -> cyanide, Canaanite graphite-api.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyanite -> cyanide, Canaanite 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- graphite-api-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): graphite-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh config(graphite-api) python(abi) python3-PyYAML python3-cairo python3-cairocffi python3-cffi python3-flask python3-flask-cache python3-gunicorn python3-itsdangerous python3-pyparsing python3-pytz python3-six python3-structlog python3-tzlocal python3-werkzeug shadow-utils systemd Provides -------- graphite-api-doc: graphite-api-doc graphite-api: config(graphite-api) graphite-api Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brutasse/graphite-api/archive/be7907c0138c0b9f05a84d44fd6e41ff397d407e/graphite-api-be7907c0138c0b9f05a84d44fd6e41ff397d407e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0f46ff75772851366177ef2d0ee8fd17749ed27382b0c4bf0484621acdce4a57 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f46ff75772851366177ef2d0ee8fd17749ed27382b0c4bf0484621acdce4a57 -- 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