https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290345 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |panemade@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: 1) macro sum is not defined properly. Change %global Terminal User Interface for docker engine to %global sum Terminal User Interface for docker engine 2) rpmlint also complained about python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 ==> Fix this by adding following to %prep sed -i 1d sen/cli.py ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1290345-sen/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-sen (summary) [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sen-0.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm sen-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm python3-sen.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htop -> hop, top, stop python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alot -> a lot, alto, slot python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tig -> chg, git, rig python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-sen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sen sen.src: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htop -> hop, top, stop sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alot -> a lot, alto, slot sen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tig -> chg, git, rig 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-sen.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} python3-sen.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l C alot -> a lot python3-sen.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/sen/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-sen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sen 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-sen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-docker-py python3-humanize python3-urwid Provides -------- python3-sen: python3-sen Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/sen/sen-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 199318c40d68bf7a6cfa5416c4ac7aa0563af489cf3b1f9fc679dc5720cd6478 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 199318c40d68bf7a6cfa5416c4ac7aa0563af489cf3b1f9fc679dc5720cd6478 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1290345 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Fix the issues reported at start of this review text before this package import. APPROVED. -- 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