https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892 --- Comment #4 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - About the check issues you can try to include before tests: export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 export LANG=C.UTF-8 export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}/%{python2_sitearch} - Please check the ownership of this directories: [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib/systemd - Please check this rpmlint issues: Rpmlint ------- Checking: commissaire-0.0.1rc3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm commissaire-0.0.1rc3-1.fc23.src.rpm commissaire.noarch: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3 commissaire.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/systemd/system/commissaire.service commissaire.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/licenses/commissaire/COPYING LICENSE commissaire.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/sysconfig/commissaire commissaire.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary commissaire commissaire.src: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3 commissaire.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. - The spec is not the same in the link than in the src.rpm Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/makerpm/1328892-commissaire/srpm/commissaire.spec 2016-06-01 21:28:24.581000000 +0000 +++ /home/makerpm/1328892-commissaire/srpm-unpacked/commissaire.spec 2016-04-19 21:54:59.000000000 +0000 @@ -28,7 +28,4 @@ Requires: python-requests Requires: py-bcrypt - -# Ansible's Python API has no stability guarantees, -# so keep the acceptable versions on a short leash. Requires: ansible >= 2.0.1.0 Requires: ansible < 2.0.2.0 @@ -64,5 +61,5 @@ %check # XXX: Issue with the coverage module. -#%{__python2} setup.py nosetests +# %{__python2} setup.py nosetests ===== 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. [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 [x]: 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. [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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== EXTRA items ===== Requires -------- commissaire (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/python2 ansible py-bcrypt python(abi) python-cherrypy python-jinja2 python-requests python-setuptools python2-falcon python2-python-etcd Provides -------- commissaire: commissaire Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projectatomic/commissaire/archive/0.0.1rc3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 54254a5455ebff1d3cc97dda683af8fb091afe6b793e9fc384f7316632795898 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54254a5455ebff1d3cc97dda683af8fb091afe6b793e9fc384f7316632795898 -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx