https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614504 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Use: Source0: %{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz not Source0: https://%{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Not needed, et is the default: %defattr(-,root,root) - Use "install -p" to keep the timestamp install -pm644 contrib/banner.conf %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/banner.conf install -pm644 share/%{name}-screenshot.png %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}-screenshot.png install -pm644 contrib/%{name}.desktop %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/autostart/%{name}.desktop - Use: BuildRequires: python2-setuptools BuildRequires: python2-devel - Don't use a glob here, be more specific. Also use python2_sitelib: %{python2_sitelib}/classification_banner %{python2_sitelib}/classification_banner-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info - This shouldn't be necessary for a noarch package: %global debug_package %{nil} - The Release info is missing in your %changelog entry: * Thu Aug 9 2018 Gabe <redhatrises@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.6.7-1 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782w ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/home/bob/packaging/review /classification-banner/review-classification-banner/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/classification-banner [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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 [-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in classification-banner [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 10240 bytes in 3 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [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). [?]: 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. [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: [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: classification-banner-1.6.7-1.el7.noarch.rpm classification-banner-1.6.7-1.el7.src.rpm classification-banner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US twm -> tam, two, tom classification-banner.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icewm -> icemen classification-banner.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.6.7 ['1.6.7-1.el7', '1.6.7-1'] classification-banner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary classification-banner classification-banner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US twm -> tam, two, tom classification-banner.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US icewm -> icemen 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/5WR3QQB2JIYC4CTLPNURW6BEJNJ3H2UP/
