https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331 Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |rbean@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |rbean@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I'll take this review. A couple of issues, documented below. Package Review ============== [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/fedrepo_req Please use %dir for the fedrepo_req dir and %config(noreplace) for the config files. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -fedrepo-req , fedrepo-req-admin Please use = %{version}-%{release} to bind the packages together. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I understand that there are problems running in koji, so this is okay. Also, RPMLint is unhappy. Please try to reduce the warnings there. ===== 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. [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/fedrepo_req [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/fedrepo_req [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 30720 bytes in 3 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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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: [x]: 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 -fedrepo-req , fedrepo-req-admin [x]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I understand that there are problems running in koji, so this is okay. [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: fedrepo-req-0.1.6-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python2-fedrepo-req-0.1.6-1.fc27.noarch.rpm fedrepo-req-admin-0.1.6-1.fc27.noarch.rpm fedrepo-req-0.1.6-1.fc27.src.rpm fedrepo-req.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora fedrepo-req.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora fedrepo-req.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req_branch.py /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req_branch.py 644 /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req.py /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req.py 644 /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedrepo-req-branch fedrepo-req.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedrepo-req python2-fedrepo-req.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/git.py /usr/bin/env python python2-fedrepo-req.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/git.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-fedrepo-req.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/fedrepo_req/config.ini fedrepo-req-admin.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) repos -> ropes, reps, repose fedrepo-req-admin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repos -> ropes, reps, repose fedrepo-req-admin.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req_admin.py /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req-admin.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req_admin.py 644 /usr/bin/env python fedrepo-req-admin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedrepo-req-admin fedrepo-req.src: E: summary-too-long C A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora fedrepo-req.src: E: description-line-too-long C A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora fedrepo-req.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} fedrepo-req.src:88: W: macro-in-comment %{python2_sitelib} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- fedrepo-req (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python2-fedrepo-req python2-fedrepo-req (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): PyYAML git python(abi) python-bugzilla python-fedora python-six python2-click python2-requests fedrepo-req-admin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python2-fedrepo-req Provides -------- fedrepo-req: fedrepo-req python2-fedrepo-req: python-fedrepo-req python2-fedrepo-req python2.7dist(fedrepo-req) python2dist(fedrepo-req) fedrepo-req-admin: fedrepo-req-admin Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.io/packages/source/f/fedrepo_req/fedrepo_req-0.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c5670b11def99592e577ca7af1934934930d7e13b91dc56c2cbe81212ce5156 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c5670b11def99592e577ca7af1934934930d7e13b91dc56c2cbe81212ce5156 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1469331 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
