https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199 Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|needinfo?(hguemar@xxxxxxxxx |fedora-review+ |m) | --- Comment #18 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. Please fix the source mismatch, but since you're upstream maintainer, I trust you for using published tarballs. Anyway, it does build with the other one 2. I'd move generic build time dependencies git and asciidoc outside of the python2 subpackage 3. Minor item, rdopkg main package does not need to include license file since it pulls it from python{2,3}-rdopkg. Other, I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, just make sure to fix the items pointed above. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ===== 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: "Apache", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hguemar/1246199-rdopkg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 266240 bytes in 10 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 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: [-]: 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-rdopkg , python3-rdopkg [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. [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: rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm python2-rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm python3-rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.noarch.rpm rdopkg-0.45.0-3.fc28.src.rpm python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2 ./rdopkg python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2.7 ./rdopkg python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2 python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2.7 python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3 python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3.6 rdopkg.src: W: file-size-mismatch rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz = 115065, https://pypi.io/packages/source/r/rdopkg/rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz = 114902 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3 python3-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-3.6 python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-documentation python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2 ./rdopkg python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/rdopkg-2.7 ./rdopkg python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2 python2-rdopkg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdopkg-2.7 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- python3-rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 git-core git-review python(abi) python3-PyYAML python3-future python3-koji python3-paramiko python3-pbr python3-pyOpenSSL python3-pymod2pkg python3-requests python3-setuptools python3-six python2-rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): PyYAML git-core git-review pyOpenSSL python(abi) python-bunch python-future python-paramiko python-pbr python-pymod2pkg python-requests python-setuptools python-six python2-koji rdopkg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python2-rdopkg Provides -------- python3-rdopkg: python3-rdopkg python3.6dist(rdopkg) python3dist(rdopkg) python2-rdopkg: python-rdopkg python2-rdopkg python2.7dist(rdopkg) python2dist(rdopkg) rdopkg: rdopkg Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.io/packages/source/r/rdopkg/rdopkg-0.45.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f0c45141787262866e198b0da2c0f90ed99c25afd15b0c9f9252b4a0615702f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfa173ead1a72116e0df957afdb623e6524aade4648ed4ada7e85222a568a376 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 1246199 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
