https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387834 Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch <lupinix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Approved, looks fine so far :) One point I have to mention: You install udev rules as config(noreplace), I think you've dont that because rules are shipped by both python2 and python3 package. IMHO you should provide a common package for both containing the udev rules (for which you can use the %{_udevrulesdir} macro btw). This avoids problems with updates (non updated rules). 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 (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lupinix/1387834-python-evic/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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). ==> I recommend to use %{_udevrulesdir} macro for udev rules [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 (~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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-evic , python3-evic ===> python packages are standalone [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-evic-0.1-0.1.git20160814.f916017.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-evic-0.1-0.1.git20160814.f916017.fc26.noarch.rpm python-evic-0.1-0.1.git20160814.f916017.fc26.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python2-evic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /etc/udev/rules.d /usr/bin/python2 config(python2-evic) python(abi) python-click python2-binstruct python2-bitarray python2-bitstruct python2-hidapi python2-pillow python3-evic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /etc/udev/rules.d /usr/bin/python3 config(python3-evic) python(abi) python3-binstruct python3-bitarray python3-bitstruct python3-click python3-hidapi python3-pillow Provides -------- python2-evic: config(python2-evic) python-evic python2-evic python2.7dist(evic) python2dist(evic) python3-evic: config(python3-evic) python3-evic python3.5dist(evic) python3dist(evic) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Ban3/python-evic/archive/f916017f987cac6eb90bf25e521455d17d4e3440.tar.gz#/python-evic-0.1-git20160814-f916017.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc203159c0bef0520263be3ee6daccbc22c343364e38abf158a245b8c9fe00bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc203159c0bef0520263be3ee6daccbc22c343364e38abf158a245b8c9fe00bb Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -L rpm_deps/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1387834 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 Built with local dependencies: /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python3-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python3-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python-hidapi-debuginfo-0.7.99.post19-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python2-bitstruct-3.3.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python2-hidapi-0.7.99.post19-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python3-hidapi-0.7.99.post19-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm /home/lupinix/rpm_deps/python2-binstruct-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx