https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301809 Adam Miller <admiller@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Adam Miller <admiller@xxxxxxxxxx> --- 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: "Unknown or generated". 276 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/reviews/1301809 -pulp-rpm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/pki/pulp, /var/lib/pulp, /var/lib/pulp/published, /etc/pulp, /etc/pulp/vhosts80, /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d, /etc/pulp/agent [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d, /etc/pki/pulp, /etc/httpd, /var/lib/pulp/published, /etc/pulp/agent, /etc/httpd/conf.d, /var/lib/pulp, /etc/pulp, /etc/pulp/vhosts80 [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 71680 bytes in 7 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]: %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 [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in pulp- rpm-admin-extensions , pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions , pulp-rpm-devel , pulp-rpm-doc , pulp-rpm-handlers , pulp-rpm-plugins , pulp-rpm- yumplugins , python2-pulp-rpm-common [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: pulp-rpm-admin-extensions-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-devel-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-doc-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-handlers-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-plugins-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-yumplugins-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm python2-pulp-rpm-common-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.noarch.rpm pulp-rpm-2.8.0-0.3.beta.1.fc24.src.rpm pulp-rpm-admin-extensions.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capabilites -> capabilities, capability, liabilities pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capabilites -> capabilities, capability, liabilities pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/bind.conf pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/rpm.conf pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/linux.conf pulp-rpm-plugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/vhosts80/rpm.conf pulp-rpm-yumplugins.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pulp-rpm-yumplugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/pulp-profile-update.conf 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pulp-rpm-yumplugins.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pulp-rpm-yumplugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/pulp-profile-update.conf pulp-rpm-admin-extensions.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capabilites -> capabilities, capability, liabilities pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capabilites -> capabilities, capability, liabilities pulp-rpm-plugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/vhosts80/rpm.conf pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/bind.conf pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/rpm.conf pulp-rpm-handlers.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pulp/agent/conf.d/linux.conf 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/admiller/reviews/1301809-pulp-rpm/srpm/pulp-rpm.spec 2016-01-28 15:25:33.647789634 -0600 +++ /home/admiller/reviews/1301809-pulp-rpm/srpm-unpacked/pulp-rpm.spec 2016-01-25 20:28:51.000000000 -0600 @@ -89,5 +89,5 @@ %description admin-extensions A collection of extensions that supplement and override generic admin -client capabilities with RPM specific features. +client capabilites with RPM specific features. @@ -108,5 +108,5 @@ %description consumer-extensions A collection of extensions that supplement and override generic consumer -client capabilities with RPM specific features. +client capabilites with RPM specific features. Requires -------- pulp-rpm-yumplugins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-rhsm python2-pulp-bindings yum pulp-rpm-admin-extensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pulp-admin-client python(abi) python-pulp-rpm-common pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pulp-consumer-client python(abi) python-pulp-rpm-common pulp-rpm-plugins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(pulp-rpm-plugins) createrepo createrepo_c genisoimage m2crypto pulp-server pyliblzma python(abi) python-lxml python-nectar python-rhsm python2-pulp-oid_validation python2-pulp-rpm-common pulp-rpm-handlers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedora-repos python(abi) python-pulp-agent-lib python-pulp-rpm-common python-rhsm pulp-rpm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-pulp-rpm-common python2-pulp-rpm-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-pulp-common pulp-rpm-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- pulp-rpm-yumplugins: pulp-rpm-yumplugins pulp-rpm-admin-extensions: pulp-rpm-admin-extensions pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions: pulp-rpm-consumer-extensions pulp-rpm-plugins: config(pulp-rpm-plugins) pulp-rpm-plugins pulp-rpm-handlers: pulp-rpm-handlers pulp-rpm-devel: pulp-rpm-devel python2-pulp-rpm-common: python-pulp-rpm-common python2-pulp-rpm-common pulp-rpm-doc: pulp-rpm-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/archive/pulp-rpm-2.8.0-0.3.beta.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20950c2aa00a693ce6a69cc7fe5bddfc615a65b9f5e4cf9d071a0d3442263b04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20950c2aa00a693ce6a69cc7fe5bddfc615a65b9f5e4cf9d071a0d3442263b04 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1301809 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-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 Notes ----- - Just fix the typo that makes the diff between the SRPM and the spec 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