https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450149 Göran Uddeborg <goeran@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- The fedora-review and rpmlint commands seem to fail on the %python_provide macro. At least I couldn't get it to work. So this is a more manual review, apologies if the formatting got sub-standard because of that. Package Review ============== Legend: [+] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== [+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. As mentioned, rpmlint fails on python_provide for me. Obviously not a problem with the package. python-minidb.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %check python-minidb.src: E: specfile-error error: line 22: Unknown tag: %python_provide: ERROR: python3-minidb not recognized. python-minidb.src: E: specfile-error error: query of specfile /tmp/rpmlint.python-minidb-2.0.2-1.fc26.src.rpm._edaamvy/python-minidb.spec failed, can't parse 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. [+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [-] 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 must be included in %license. [+] The spec file must be written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [-] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [+] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] Each package must consistently use macros. [+] The package must contain code, or permissible content. [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-] Development files must be in a -devel package. [-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ----- Python specific MUST items ----- [-] If you build for more than one python runtime you must use the %python_provide macro. [+] If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the unversioned python package. [+] Python modules must be built from source. [+] Python modules must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won't conflict with the main package. [-] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. ===== SHOULD items ===== [!] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Have you had any contact with upstreams about this. Since the package is so small, maybe they don't want to bother? [-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. ----- Python specific SHOULD items ----- [+] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ===== Additional note ===== I'm curious over your patch, replacing "..." with "pass" in an emtpy class. As I understand it, it is a matter of style, so I don't understand why you felt it important to change it when packaging. ===== Conclusion ===== The package is approved. -- 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
