https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481477 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: greenwave - |Review Request: greenwave - |Greenwave is a service for |Service for gating on |gating on automated tests |automated tests by querying |by querying ResultsDB and |ResultsDB and WaiverDB |WaiverDB | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Approved BUT please see items under "Issues" that should be fixed on import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= fedora-review found an (insignificant) difference between the tarball on PyPI vs. the tarball in your SRPM. This probably just means you built the SRPM from a hand-rolled tarball. Make sure you use the proper one published on PyPI when importing the package. diff -U2 -r /home/dcallagh/work/fedora/reviews/1481477-greenwave/upstream-unpacked/Source0/greenwave-0.1/setup.cfg /home/dcallagh/work/fedora/reviews/1481477-greenwave/srpm-unpacked/greenwave-0.1.tar.gz-extract/greenwave-0.1/setup.cfg --- /home/dcallagh/work/fedora/reviews/1481477-greenwave/upstream-unpacked/Source0/greenwave-0.1/setup.cfg 2017-08-14 16:21:42.000000000 +1000 +++ /home/dcallagh/work/fedora/reviews/1481477-greenwave/srpm-unpacked/greenwave-0.1.tar.gz-extract/greenwave-0.1/setup.cfg 2017-08-15 11:09:53.000000000 +1000 @@ -2,4 +2,3 @@ tag_build = tag_date = 0 -tag_svn_revision = 0 There is also a typo in the %changelog, you have 0.1.1 but should be 0.1-1. Please correct this before importing. ===== 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. [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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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 583680 bytes in 42 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. [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]: 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. [x]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Fedora-review considers this rule to be violated, but the make invocation is just for sphinx which can't be parallelised anyway, so it's not an issue. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: greenwave-0.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm greenwave-0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm greenwave.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1 ['0.1-1.fc27', '0.1-1'] greenwave.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/greenwave/html/.buildinfo greenwave.src: W: file-size-mismatch greenwave-0.1.tar.gz = 99995, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/greenwave/greenwave-0.1.tar.gz = 100014 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- greenwave.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1.1 ['0.1-1.fc27', '0.1-1'] greenwave.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/greenwave/html/.buildinfo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- greenwave (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh PyYAML python(abi) python2-flask python2-requests systemd Provides -------- greenwave: greenwave python2.7dist(greenwave) python2dist(greenwave) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/greenwave/greenwave-0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa012537e1566f5cbe6a4e794c976f8f7ab221f466d5e665c0ffee73d8c33401 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e773c2dbf6fd6713e5ef845bde5c70a4908ffb766572a3ec9b25b7b4d843fff4 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1481477 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
