https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328951 --- Comment #3 from William Moreno <williamjmorenor@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel BR must python2-devel Also for Fedora packaging it is preferred to build using python3. - Check packaging guideline about pre relases versión to fix the rpmlint issue about bad versión format. - Does this package requires commissaire at runtime or can work with remote hosts? ===== 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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: [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: commissaire-client-0.0.1rc3-2.fc25.noarch.rpm commissaire-client-0.0.1rc3-2.fc25.src.rpm commissaire-client.noarch: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3 commissaire-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary commctl commissaire-client.src: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3 commissaire-client.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides commctl commissaire-client.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- commissaire-client.noarch: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3 commissaire-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary commctl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- commissaire-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 PyYAML py-bcrypt python(abi) python-setuptools Provides -------- commissaire-client: commctl commissaire-client Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/projectatomic/commctl/archive/0.0.1rc3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b8b7bb6b3a1394fe71766eaada10b1e0ea5e12568e0ef49aa325952dd843e938 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8b7bb6b3a1394fe71766eaada10b1e0ea5e12568e0ef49aa325952dd843e938 -- 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