https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249702 Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Patrick Uiterwijk <puiterwijk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- The python-custodia and python3-custodia packages don't install the license. Please fix that before pushing. Package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed custodia package installs license file, but is not required for python(3)-custodia ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm custodia-0.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm custodia.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets for other processes. python-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Subpackage -> Sub package, Sub-package, Package's python-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Subpackage -> Sub package, Sub-package, Package's python-custodia.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Subpackage -> Sub package, Sub-package, Package's python3-custodia.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Subpackage -> Sub package, Sub-package, Package's python3-custodia.noarch: W: no-documentation custodia.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C A service to manage, retrieve and store secrets for other processes. custodia.src: W: invalid-url Source1: https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.tar.gz.sha512sum.txt HTTP Error 403: Forbidden custodia.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python-custodia python-jwcrypto python3-custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-jwcrypto python-custodia (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- custodia: custodia python3-custodia: python3-custodia python-custodia: python-custodia Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : face7f24d6b42b6ec79cf578028f7d0bbc9f29110e36147d17517360016f8cb0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1ecc6d5324c5c6911d0c777d117b207e37a6ace5495154af1e72eea122d6da05 https://github.com/simo5/custodia/releases/download/v0.1.0/custodia-0.1.0.tar.gz.sha512sum.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ddea3dd174af721896cd90cedf765e9296e2811055434ca5110a0c87a616dfc5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddea3dd174af721896cd90cedf765e9296e2811055434ca5110a0c87a616dfc5 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n custodia --prebuilt Buildroot used: fedora-21-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