https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305996 --- Comment #12 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== 1. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. There is a complete libuv bundled in pyuv-1.2.0/deps/libuv/ 2. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Most of the time with python packages try to get some pkgs from pypi in check there are missing build requires (and maybe missing requires) please doble check if dowloaded packages are already in Fedora repos, if so, include then as buildrequires, if not you must package then firt. 3. There is a doc directory than you can compile to html with python-sphinx and include in a doc subpackage. 4. Can these files go to a -devel supackage. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-pyuv: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyuv/_cpyuv.so python3-pyuv: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/pyuv/_cpyuv.cpython-34m.so ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-pyuv-1.2.0-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python3-pyuv-1.2.0-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-pyuv-debuginfo-1.2.0-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-pyuv-1.2.0-5.fc23.src.rpm python-pyuv.src:59: W: macro-in-comment %{python2_version} python-pyuv.src:60: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_version} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-pyuv-debuginfo-1.2.0-5.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-pyuv-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-pyuv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-pyuv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libuv.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-pyuv-debuginfo: python-pyuv-debuginfo python-pyuv-debuginfo(x86-64) python2-pyuv: python-pyuv python-pyuv(x86-64) python2-pyuv python2-pyuv(x86-64) python3-pyuv: python3-pyuv python3-pyuv(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyuv/pyuv-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5783fbd21309e7c64f15ed9e73fd0aefbf9b71cf18fb328f5ca456c36e402e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5783fbd21309e7c64f15ed9e73fd0aefbf9b71cf18fb328f5ca456c36e402e7 -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx