https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295685 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ==> I am not sure why fedora-review package installation test failed. At least same srpm built on F23, installed without problem. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib64/python3.5 [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.5 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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: [-]: 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 python2-bcrypt , python3-bcrypt , python-bcrypt-debuginfo [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python2-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python3-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python-bcrypt-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python-bcrypt-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python2-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python3-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python-bcrypt-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/parag/1295685-python-bcrypt/results/python-bcrypt-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm python3-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm python-bcrypt-debuginfo-2.0.0-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm python-bcrypt-2.0.0-3.fc24.src.rpm python-bcrypt.src:70: W: macro-in-comment %check python-bcrypt.src:71: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} python-bcrypt.src:72: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python2-bcrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python-cffi python-six rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-bcrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.5m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) python3-cffi python3-six rtld(GNU_HASH) python-bcrypt-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python2-bcrypt: python-bcrypt python-bcrypt(x86-64) python2-bcrypt python2-bcrypt(x86-64) python3-bcrypt: python3-bcrypt python3-bcrypt(x86-64) python-bcrypt-debuginfo: python-bcrypt-debuginfo python-bcrypt-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-bcrypt: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/bcrypt/_bcrypt.so python3-bcrypt: /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/bcrypt/_bcrypt.cpython-35m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bcrypt/bcrypt-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b2d197ef220d10eb74625dde7af3b10daa973ae9a1eadd6366f763fad4387fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b2d197ef220d10eb74625dde7af3b10daa973ae9a1eadd6366f763fad4387fa Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 When import this package, just add more information about licensing like #crypt_blowfish code is in Public domain and all other code in ASL 2.0 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