https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844 --- Comment #1 from Petr Hracek <phracek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Package is not relocatable. Note: Package has a "Prefix:" tag See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/phracek/work/1466844-modtools/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/modularity, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/contrib, /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/modtools-0.0.1-py2.7.egg-info [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site- packages/contrib, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/modularity, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/modtools-0.0.1-py2.7.egg-info, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tests [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [!]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Vendor: Dominika Hodovska <dhodovsk@xxxxxxxxxx> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: file:///home/dhodovsk/rpmbuild/SOURCES/modtools-0.0.1.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [!]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define name modtools, %define version 0.0.1, %define unmangled_version 0.0.1, %define unmangled_version 0.0.1, %define release 1 [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: modtools-0.0.1-1.noarch.rpm modtools-0.0.1-1.src.rpm modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openshift -> open shift, open-shift, downshift modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module, modulo modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape modtools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1 ['0.0.1-1', '0.0.1-1'] modtools.noarch: W: no-documentation modtools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/contrib/modtools.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 modtools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modtools modtools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openshift -> open shift, open-shift, downshift modtools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module, modulo modtools.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape modtools.src:26: W: setup-not-quiet 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US openshift -> open shift, open-shift, downshift modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module, modulo modtools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> API, pi, ape modtools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1 ['0.0.1-1', '0.0.1-1'] modtools.noarch: W: no-documentation modtools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/contrib/modtools.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 modtools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modtools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/phracek/work/1466844-modtools/srpm/modtools.spec 2017-07-11 10:57:11.434232765 +0200 +++ /home/phracek/work/1466844-modtools/srpm-unpacked/modtools.spec 2017-06-30 16:06:58.000000000 +0200 @@ -9,5 +9,5 @@ Version: %{version} Release: %{release} -Source0: file:///home/dhodovsk/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%{name}-%{unmangled_version}.tar.gz +Source0: http://releases.pagure.org/modularity/modularity-tools/%{name}-%{unmangled_version}.tar.gz License: MIT Group: Development/Libraries Requires -------- modtools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python python(abi) Provides -------- modtools: modtools python2.7dist(modtools) python2dist(modtools) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1466844 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 Commented by phracek: - Please use GPLv2 or GPLv3 license. I would not use MIT. - Fix changelog entry - modtools.py has missing executable permissions. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - LICENSE is missing in UPSTREAM - There is no owner for directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-package/modularity - There is missing man-page for mod-tools. I would prefer to create the one from help. - tests are missing, although they are specified in upstream. I would prefer to execute it in %check section. - Use proper Source URL https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Package must own all directories that it creates. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership - do not use %define but %global https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - Please read Packaging:Python guildelines, how to used in SPEC file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python - Use python2_sitelib https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file - It is only Python2 package or Python3 or both? -- 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
