https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285941 --- Comment #9 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- OK you have done 3 informals review so here your review, python packages and generally easy to package but who will see in the review than Fedora Packaging Guidelines forces to a high quality packaging even for simple apps, this is the reason because always is better to install from repos than directly from pypi. Package Review ============== 1. [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. There is a docs directoty in the tarball than contains a sphinx documentation you need futures sphinx sphinxcontrib-fulltoc and sphinxcontrib-httpdomain check if those BuildRequires are available in Fedora, if not you will need to package thpse firts. Those docs must go in a docs subpackage. Note than the tarball contains a /docs/.build/html directori, you can include this in docs but it is allways prefered remove this files and build the documentations from sources in the rpm build process. 2. Include the AUTHORS and CHANGES files with %doc 3. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream Provides some test than you need to run in %%check, you need to add mock to run the test. 4. [!]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. This app SERVE a web interface so you must provide a unit file (flower.service) 5. [!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Tarball contains egg info than you must remove in %%prep 6. [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. Also need to run a rm -rg *.pyc to remove the python bytecode in the tarball and package only with source python files (.py) rpmbuild will create it owns bite code. 7. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. You have a colition in %{_bindir} when you install flower with python2 this create a executable named flower, then you install with python3 and this owerwrite the flower executable, then you include de python3 flower executable in the python2 subpackage, this create than the flower executable in the python2 package have a python3 shebang so the python2 package requires python3 and will not work if the python3 subpackage ins't installed. python2-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 You need to install with python2 and rename the flower executable to flower-py2 then install with python3 and in %files do: %files -n python2-%{srcname} %{_bindir}/%{srcname}-py2 %files -n python3-%{srcname} %{_bindir}/%{srcname} 8. rpmlint is unhappy about the missing man pages for the executables files in bindir, you can use sphinx to build a manpage and include it in the package. ====== Try to fix those issues as part as your packaging learning, a really good wait to learn if looking at others spec files in Fedora PKGDB, if you need help to fix some of those issues just ping me. ====== ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [Pass]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [Pass]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [Pass]: Changelog in prescribed format. [NA]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [NA]: Development files must be in a -devel package [Pass]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [Pass]: Package consistently uses macros [Pass]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [Pass]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [NA]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [Pass]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [Pass]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [Pass]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [Pass]: Package installs properly. [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [Pass]: 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. [Pass]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [Pass]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [Pass]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [Pass]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [Pass]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [Pass]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [Pass]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [Pass]: Dist tag is present. [Pass]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [Pass]: Permissions on files are set properly. [Pass]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [Pass]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [Pass]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [Pass]: Package is not relocatable. [Pass]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [Pass]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [Pass]: File names are valid UTF-8. [Pass]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [Pass]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [Pass]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [Pass]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [NA]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [Pass]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [NA]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [Pass]: Latest version is packaged. [Pass]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [NA]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [Pass]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [Pass]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [Pass]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [Pass]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [Pass]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [Pass]: Buildroot is not present [Pass]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [Pass]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [Pass]: SourceX is a working URL. [Pass]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [Pass]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [Pass]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-flower-0.8.3-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower python3-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower python2-flower.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flower 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-babel python3-celery python3-pytz python3-tornado python2-flower (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-babel python-celery python-tornado pytz Provides -------- python3-flower: python3-flower python2-flower: python-flower python2-flower Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/f/flower/flower-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca6ae26361e58491d51eaded0ee7134087f4ea3cdd00ac158d903dc02dd0e85b -- 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