https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mmathesi@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(mmathesi@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Currently, the package has `BuildRequires: python`, but it should be one or both of `BuildRequires: python2-devel` or `BuildRequires: python3-devel` - If the package only supports Python 2, then it needs to indicate that in a comment in the spec file. If it supports Python 3, then it must build the Python 3 version as well and only the python3-aexpect package may ship aexpect-helper - Non-blocking, but instead of `%{python_sitelib}/aexpect*`, use %{python_sitelib}/aexpect/ %{python_sitelib}/aexpect-%{version}-py%{python2_version}-.egg-info This has the benefit of intentionally failing a build if an unexpected file starting with "aexpect" turns up in that location. It's better to be explicit about what ends up in the RPMs. - The URL is wrong: it points to the Avocado documentation. It should probably just be https://github.com/autotest/aexpect - Drop the %defattr line from %files. It's not needed on Fedora or any currently supported version of RHEL. - Where does the version 1.2.0 come from? I don't see that in the tarball or upstream anywhere. - The commit doesn't match the latest HEAD or any tags. Why pick that one? It needs to be in a comment. - Upstream includes a script called `selftests/checkall`. Why isn't this run in %check?. If it doesn't work or isn't meaningful, it should be added to the spec but commented out with a note about why for future packagers. - in %description, drop the "Aexpect is" lead-in. It doesn't need to duplicate the name. ===== 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedorareview/1393129-aexpect/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: aexpect-1.2.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm aexpect-1.2.0-1.fc26.src.rpm aexpect.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Aexpect aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pexpect -> expect, p expect aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scp -> cps, sci, sip aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sftp -> ftp, ftps, s ftp aexpect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aexpect-helper aexpect.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Aexpect aexpect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pexpect -> expect, p expect aexpect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scp -> cps, sci, sip aexpect.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sftp -> ftp, ftps, s ftp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- aexpect.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Aexpect aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pexpect -> expect, p expect aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scp -> cps, sci, sip aexpect.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sftp -> ftp, ftps, s ftp aexpect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary aexpect-helper 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- aexpect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python python(abi) Provides -------- aexpect: aexpect python2.7dist(aexpect) python2dist(aexpect) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/autotest/aexpect/archive/89b715b19918dba923e48d1c42b813c5f54d2c5a.tar.gz#/aexpect-89b715b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d2e8da0496c7f130c6022ba70c12eaf0e0acedd4fd94b9ed6216cf6e59b4ab2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d2e8da0496c7f130c6022ba70c12eaf0e0acedd4fd94b9ed6216cf6e59b4ab2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1393129 -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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx