https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429 Dominika Krejčí <dkrejci@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dkrejci@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dkrejci@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Dominika Krejčí <dkrejci@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Lumír, the package seems ok to me, accept the large documentation, which must be included in the special subpackage. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== * Put the large documentation (~3MB and more files) into the -doc subpackage. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Contains Python extension module. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dkrejci/fedora_review/1350429-python-maxminddb/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: 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]: 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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-maxminddb , python3-maxminddb , python-maxminddb-debuginfo [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm python3-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-maxminddb-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-maxminddb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets python2-maxminddb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/maxminddb/extension/maxminddb.c python3-maxminddb.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets python3-maxminddb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/maxminddb/extension/maxminddb.c python-maxminddb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-maxminddb-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-maxminddb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/maxminddb/extension/maxminddb.c python3-maxminddb.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/maxminddb/extension/maxminddb.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-maxminddb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libmaxminddb.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python3-maxminddb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libmaxminddb.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-maxminddb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python2-maxminddb: python-maxminddb python-maxminddb(x86-64) python2-maxminddb python2-maxminddb(x86-64) python3-maxminddb: python3-maxminddb python3-maxminddb(x86-64) python-maxminddb-debuginfo: python-maxminddb-debuginfo python-maxminddb-debuginfo(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python2-maxminddb: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/maxminddb/extension.so python3-maxminddb: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/maxminddb/extension.cpython-34m.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/m/maxminddb/maxminddb-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7f845e0bfb8ee05a805b796790414d75329a71d25a8089c54726629cf148684 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7f845e0bfb8ee05a805b796790414d75329a71d25a8089c54726629cf148684 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1350429 Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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