https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294862 --- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev <denis@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 308 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/sandbox/review/1294862-python3-nose/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/nose(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/nose/sphinx/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4 /site-packages/nose/tools(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/nose/sphinx(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/nose/plugins/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4 /site-packages/nose-1.3.7-py3.4.egg-info(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/tools/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/ext(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/ext/__pycache__(python3-nose), /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/nose/plugins(python3-nose) Note: not related to epel7 [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. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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. [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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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-nose-1.3.7-1.el7.centos.src.rpm python3-nose.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- Provides -------- Separate "python34-nose-1.3.7-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm" checks: ---------------------------------- rpmlint: python34-nose.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package installs the nose module and nosetests-3.4 program that can discover python34-nose.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpm -qp --requires python34-nose-1.3.7-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 python34-setuptools 1 python(abi) = 3.4 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 1 /usr/bin/python3.4 $ rpm -qp --provides python34-nose-1.3.7-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 python34-nose = 1.3.7-1.el7.centos Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/n/nose/nose-1.3.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1bffef9cbc82628f6e7d7b40d7e255aefaa1adb6a1b1d26c69a8b79e6208a98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1bffef9cbc82628f6e7d7b40d7e255aefaa1adb6a1b1d26c69a8b79e6208a98 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m epel-7-x86_64 -b 1294862 Buildroot used: epel-7-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 Remarks: -------- 1) Upstream URL is invalid, please fix it; 2) Please fix the long line in package description; 3) Some .rst from doc/ can be included into `%doc` since the package includes plugins, etc; 4) Please add coreutils to BR. -- 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