https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487420 Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(projects.rg@smart | |.ms) | --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the fixes and your comments in IRC. APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep: ./tests/app_loading/eggs/brokenapp.egg ./tests/app_loading/eggs/modelapp.egg ./tests/app_loading/eggs/nomodelapp.egg ./tests/app_loading/eggs/omelet.egg ./tests/template_tests/eggs/tagsegg.egg ./tests/utils_tests/eggs/test_egg.egg See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns => Ignore, tests folder is unused for binary packages. ===== 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 (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "PSF (v2)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)". 4497 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1487420-python-django16/licensecheck.txt => In assumption, BSD generally is considered okay for also all the other python-django* packages. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. => Okay, there are known issues with jquery, so to be considered a copylib. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 ===== -snip, see below- ===== 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: python-django16-1.6.11.6-4.fc28.noarch.rpm python-django16-1.6.11.6-4.fc28.src.rpm python-django16.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Django -> Fandango python-django16.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Django -> Fandango 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-django16.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Django -> Fandango 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/builder/fedora-review/1487420-python-django16/srpm/python-django16.spec 2017-10-16 19:15:11.625302862 +0200 +++ /home/builder/fedora-review/1487420-python-django16/srpm-unpacked/python-django16.spec 2017-10-12 14:54:30.000000000 +0200 @@ -85,4 +85,5 @@ chmod a+x %{buildroot}/%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg/django/contrib/admin/bin/compress.py + # Replace shebangs in executable scripts find %{buildroot} -type f -executable -exec sed -i '1s=^#!/usr/bin/\(python\|env python\)[23]\?=#!%{__python2}=' {} + Requires -------- python-django16 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- python-django16: python-django16 python2.7dist(django) python2dist(django) Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.reviewboard.org/releases/Django/1.6/Django-1.6.11.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d46de3e9e7f8a8567cae95e5a23b678630e734b29b993160119e9ec5e308dc9d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d46de3e9e7f8a8567cae95e5a23b678630e734b29b993160119e9ec5e308dc9d Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1487420 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
