https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913 Sanqui (David Labský) <dlabsky@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dlabsky@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Sanqui (David Labský) <dlabsky@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an informal review as I am not sponsored yet. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Primary issues ===== In the package description: >Unevaluated notebooks i.e. notebooks without stored output cells will be automatically executed during the Sphinx build process. Personally, I would put commas in this sentence like so: >Unevaluated notebooks, i.e. notebooks without stored output cells, will be automatically executed during the Sphinx build process. The description also seems to differ between the linked spec file and the one in the SRPM, see below. ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. LICENSE can be found in the source directory. [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Not sure how to test yet [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.6 Package definitely did not create these directories [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]: 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 1 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 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) No binary egg present. [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 ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-nbsphinx , python-nbsphinx-doc [?]: 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. Python package is noarch. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests. [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Please match the spec files. (I think the underscore is an error?) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-nbsphinx-doc-0.2.13-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc27.src.rpm python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jupyter -> Jupiter, Junketeer Name of a program. python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipynb -> nippy Name of a file format. python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Unevaluated -> Evaluated, Valuated, Evaluate Merely an obscure dictionary word. python-nbsphinx-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C nbsphinx documentation Acceptable because the program (extension) is lowercase named. python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jupyter -> Jupiter, Junketeer See above. python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipynb -> nippy See above. python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Unevaluated -> Evaluated, Valuated, Evaluate See above. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sanky/fedora/reviews/review-python-nbsphinx/srpm/python-nbsphinx.spec 2017-04-05 18:11:13.579639768 +0200 +++ /home/sanky/fedora/reviews/review-python-nbsphinx/srpm-unpacked/python-nbsphinx.spec 2017-04-04 20:12:28.000000000 +0200 @@ -25,5 +25,5 @@ %description -nbsphinx is a Sphinx extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb +nbsphinx is a Sphinx_ extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb files. Custom Sphinx directives are used to show Jupyter Notebook code cells (and of course their results) in both HTML and LaTeX output. Unevaluated @@ -43,5 +43,5 @@ %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} -nbsphinx is a Sphinx extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb +nbsphinx is a Sphinx_ extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb files. Custom Sphinx directives are used to show Jupyter Notebook code cells (and of course their results) in both HTML and LaTeX output. Unevaluated Requires -------- python3-nbsphinx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-docutils python3-jinja2 python3-nbconvert python3-nbformat python3-sphinx python3-traitlets python-nbsphinx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-nbsphinx: python3-nbsphinx python3.6dist(nbsphinx) python3dist(nbsphinx) python-nbsphinx-doc: python-nbsphinx-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nbsphinx/nbsphinx-0.2.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20f4bca5f45ffe65fff4d616c2caf365375e8f8768a73d63905bd5d0664176bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20f4bca5f45ffe65fff4d616c2caf365375e8f8768a73d63905bd5d0664176bd -- 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