https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433617 Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an un-official review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - python2 subpackage contains Provides python3-*, it should provide python2 binary - %check can be corrected as https://github.com/amperser/proselint/issues/623 is fixed upstream - For consistency one BuildRequires/Requires per line. - Invalid souce URL - Why unversioned package(only containing proselint binary) is created: proselint, are subpackages not sufficient? If proselint binary differs in functioning in python2/python3 it would be good you ship both proselint-2, proselint-3 and symlink proselint with proselint-2 or proselint-3. This way it fixes your hack for creating and removing binary for pytho2 subpackage. - Good to use versioned packages if available: python-setuptools --> python2-setuptools, same is for click, future, six - To me it looks the invalid use of Suggests and Recommends, any reason for using them in spec file. - Correct rpmlint errors ===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 221 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora-reviews/1433617-python- proselint/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-proselint , python3-proselint , proselint [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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tried fedora 25 mockbuild [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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-proselint-0.8.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-proselint-0.8.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm proselint-0.8.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-proselint-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm python2-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter python2-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter python2-proselint.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/.proselintrc python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/command_line.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/score.py /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/score.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/tools.py /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter python3-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/command_line.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/score.py /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/score.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/tools.py /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/.proselintrc proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter proselint.noarch: W: no-documentation proselint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary proselint python-proselint.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter python-proselint.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter python3-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter python3-proselint.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/.proselintrc python3-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/tools.py /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/score.py /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/score.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/proselint/command_line.py 644 /usr/bin/python python2-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter python2-proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter python2-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/tools.py /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/score.py /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/score.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-proselint.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/.proselintrc python2-proselint.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/proselint/command_line.py 644 /usr/bin/python proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter proselint.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter proselint.noarch: W: no-documentation proselint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary proselint 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 10 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ykarel/work/fedora-reviews/1433617-python-proselint/srpm/python-proselint.spec 2017-06-23 16:43:21.194284895 +0530 +++ /home/ykarel/work/fedora-reviews/1433617-python-proselint/srpm-unpacked/python-proselint.spec 2017-02-27 03:38:01.000000000 +0530 @@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ BuildRequires: python-click python3-click BuildRequires: python2-future python3-future +BuildRequires: python2-mock python3-mock BuildRequires: python-six python3-six Requires -------- python3-proselint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-click python3-future python3-six python2-proselint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-click python-future python-six proselint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-proselint Provides -------- python3-proselint: python3-proselint python3.5dist(proselint) python3dist(proselint) python2-proselint: python2-proselint python2.7dist(proselint) python2dist(proselint) proselint: proselint Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/proselint/proselint-0.8.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 08d48494533f178eb7a978cbdf10ddf85ed7fc2eb486ff5e7d0aecfa08e81bbd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 08d48494533f178eb7a978cbdf10ddf85ed7fc2eb486ff5e7d0aecfa08e81bbd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1433617 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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
