https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477154 Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #12 from Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I have opened two upstream issues for the rpmlint warnings and errors: https://github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family/issues/124 https://github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family/issues/123 Those are not blocking this review, but please fix the one with executables before building it in Fedora. Having manpages in a future release would be good too. Also please add at least README to the package, since there is literally no documentation provided right now. 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: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems running diff. Please verify manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - 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.rst is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tt/t/mtf-review/1477154-meta- test-family/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [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. [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 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]: 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: [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: [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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: %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: [!]: 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: meta-test-family-0.7.4-2.fc28.noarch.rpm meta-test-family-0.7.4-2.fc28.src.rpm meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-documentation meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moduleframework/bashhelper.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moduleframework/mtf_log_parser.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing/moduleframework/bashhelper.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing/moduleframework/mtf_log_parser.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-cmd meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-env-clean meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-env-set meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-generator meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-log-parser meta-test-family.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://codeload.github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family/tar.gz/meta-test-family-0.7.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- meta-test-family.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-documentation meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moduleframework/bashhelper.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/moduleframework/mtf_log_parser.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing/moduleframework/bashhelper.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/moduleframework/examples/multios_testing/moduleframework/mtf_log_parser.py 644 /usr/bin/python meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-cmd meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-env-clean meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-env-set meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-generator meta-test-family.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mtf-log-parser 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/tt/t/mtf-review/1477154-meta-test-family/srpm/meta-test-family.spec 2017-10-04 15:03:58.930330934 +0200 +++ /home/tt/t/mtf-review/1477154-meta-test-family/srpm-unpacked/meta-test-family.spec 2017-10-04 13:23:14.000000000 +0200 @@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ License: GPLv2+ URL: https://github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family -Source0: https://github.com/fedora-modularity/%{name}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz +Source0: https://codeload.github.com/fedora-modularity/%{name}/tar.gz/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch # Exlcude ppc64: there is no docker package on ppc64 Requires -------- meta-test-family (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /usr/bin/python /usr/bin/python2 docker python(abi) python-netifaces python2-avocado python2-avocado-plugins-output-html python2-dockerfile-parse python2-modulemd python2-pdc-client Provides -------- meta-test-family: meta-test-family modularity-testing-framework python2.7dist(meta-test-family) python2dist(meta-test-family) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fedora-modularity/meta-test-family/archive/0.7.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36d0ea01c7a785d3a976a7cebf6d77a774756ed0d2fbd28226d104d7d543c578 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1477154 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
