https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450486 Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Yatin Karel <ykarel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- This is an un-official review. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Update Summary(one liner) and Desription as in upstream repo. - Summary is inconsistent, some ends with dot(.) and some not. Summary should not end with dot. - "with_tests" variable is not defined anywhere. - Why pytest is required? i cannot find any tests in upstream. markdown should be constrained to 2.5, argparse and mako are also required. - pdoc binary is not in python2-subpackage. I think it should be there for the python2 package to be functional. - Fix Rpmlint issues ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work /fedora-reviews/1450486-pdoc/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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. :- Python package should be prefixed with python- [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. :- Why pytest is required? markdown should be constrained to 2.5, argparse and mako are also required. [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 860160 bytes in 6 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]: 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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. :- It's run after 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 :- Use prefix python- in package and spec name. [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-pdoc , python3-pdoc [x]: Package functions as described. :- After installing mako it works. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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. [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: python2-pdoc-0.3.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python3-pdoc-0.3.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm pdoc-0.3.2-1.fc25.src.rpm python3-pdoc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Library and CLI to discover the public interface of a Python module or package. python3-pdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdoc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-pdoc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Library and CLI to discover the public interface of a Python module or package. python3-pdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-pdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-markdown python3-pdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-markdown Provides -------- python2-pdoc: python-pdoc python2-pdoc python2.7dist(pdoc) python2dist(pdoc) python3-pdoc: python3-pdoc python3.5dist(pdoc) python3dist(pdoc) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BurntSushi/pdoc/archive/0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3784c3c596769b7f720243bbb7c22360bbde9ba7dccfb9c7c9b732ddc7424f4e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3784c3c596769b7f720243bbb7c22360bbde9ba7dccfb9c7c9b732ddc7424f4e Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1450486 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
