https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249 --- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek <mkrizek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== 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. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have > unknown 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. > [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. > [x]: 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. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 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: > [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. > [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [x]: 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. > [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [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 all installed packages. > Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.noarch.rpm > resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.src.rpm > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini > resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini > resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > Requires > -------- > resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python2 > fedmsg > python(abi) > python-alembic > python-flask > python-flask-login > python-flask-restful > python-flask-sqlalchemy > python-flask-wtf > python-iso8601 > python-six > python-sqlalchemy > python-wtforms > > > > Provides > -------- > resultsdb: > resultsdb > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f > > > Comments > -------- > - Requirements in requirements.txt contains: package == version. Shouldn't > be it like >= or it's working only with one version? Cause in spec are all > Requires with >= > Yeah, that's intentional. We use requirements.txt just for development purposes for installing in virtualenv. > - Missing parameters for preventing timestamps in %install section > > - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed > in /etc/* without .example suffix Thanks for the review! Updated version: Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/resultsdb.spec SRPM URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc23.src.rpm -- 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