https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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 The installation errors are caused by this: Requires: python-Tornado >= 4 Requires: python-Tornado < 4.5 The capital 'T' on 'Tornado' should be a lowercase 't', and likewise for the python3 version. - While we are talking about dependencies, it seems odd that the package 'BuildRequires: python2-sockjs-tornado', but the python2 package 'Requires: python-sockjs-tornado'. Why not the same name in both cases? - The package contains a bundled version of python-six (seesaw/six.py). Please use the system version instead. - The package contains bundled versions of a few JavaScript libraries and CSS packages in seesaw/public, namely: - jquery-1.7.2.min.js (MIT license) - reset.css (public domain) - smoothie.js (MIT license) - sockjs-0.3.js (MIT license) You have 2 options for each: unbundle or add 'Provides: bundled(foo) = ver' to the spec file. In the latter case, you'll need to change the License field to reflect the composite license, and also provide a comment explaining the license situation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios - You can, if you choose, use this URL instead for Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Can any of the tests be run in a %check script? - It seems rpmlint would like the -doc subpackage's Summary tag to have an initial capital letter; i.e., "Seesaw documentation". ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 44 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.17 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 Mock Version: 1.2.17 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.17 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python-seesaw-doc-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python3-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python2-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python-seesaw-doc-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python3-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/jamesjer/1334888-python-seesaw/results/python2-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-seesaw-doc-0.9.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-seesaw-0.9.2-1.fc25.src.rpm python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-pipeline2 python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-warrior2.7 python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-pipeline python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-warrior2 python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-pipeline2.7 python2-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-warrior python3-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-warrior3.5 python3-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-pipeline3.5 python3-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-warrior3 python3-seesaw.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary run-pipeline3 python-seesaw-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C seesaw documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- python3-seesaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-Tornado python3-sockjs-tornado python-seesaw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-seesaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-Tornado python-sockjs-tornado Provides -------- python3-seesaw: python3-seesaw python-seesaw-doc: python-seesaw-doc python2-seesaw: python-seesaw python2-seesaw Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/89/54/4261f5a4313c1636d18543a022dfb2a1f6569311fed8ae6bf3676628ff13/seesaw-0.9.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65cb4a9ee5b1cc90338c49c86ed8387b1b2fb71fd697bd914c4d5aed4435a9d1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65cb4a9ee5b1cc90338c49c86ed8387b1b2fb71fd697bd914c4d5aed4435a9d1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1334888 -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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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