https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515053 --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- In general, the build is fine, but there are a few bundling issues that must be looked at. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++ See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Please double check if g++ is required by this package. There are a few bundling issues here: - I'm not sure whether the various JS libraries that you're including can be bundled. The guidelines here say they must be packaged separately too: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaScript_libraries_packaging_guideline_draft - extern/asizeof is part of Pympler which is in Fedora. So that should be used instead of the bundled copy: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-Pympler - extern/json-minify is bundled too. I expect this needs to be packaged separately also as I've not been able to find it in the repos: https://pypi.org/project/JSON_minify/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 188 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/1515053-asv/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. May change after unbundling. Please re-check. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. - Bundles JS bits [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. - Python, but an application so it does not need a python- prefix. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 1 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 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files I haven't been able to locate them. Please check for these. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in asv-doc , asv-debuginfo , asv-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. Not checked. Please do. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 6881280 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: asv-0.3.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm asv-doc-0.3.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm asv-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm asv-debugsource-0.3.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm asv-0.3.1-1.fc28.src.rpm asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webserver -> web server, web-server, observer asv.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py /usr/bin/env python asv.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py 644 /usr/bin/env python asv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asv asv-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C asv documentation asv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end asv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webserver -> web server, web-server, observer 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: asv-debuginfo-0.3.1-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory - This could be improved as "Documentation for %{name}" which would also get rid of this error. asv-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C asv documentation - These are false positives: asv-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/airspeed-velocity/asv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> asv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/airspeed-velocity/asv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> asv-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/airspeed-velocity/asv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> - Cosmetic issues that can be tweaked. asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end asv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US webserver -> web server, web-server, observer - False positive. asv.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/airspeed-velocity/asv <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> - These should likely be removed (see comment on bundling above) asv.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py /usr/bin/env python asv.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/extern/asizeof.py 644 /usr/bin/env python - Upstream does not seem to provide one, so this is OK. asv.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary asv 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- asv-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asv-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asv-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): asv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) python3-setuptools python3-six rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- asv-doc: asv-doc asv-doc(x86-64) asv-debuginfo: asv-debuginfo asv-debuginfo(x86-64) debuginfo(build-id) asv-debugsource: asv-debugsource asv-debugsource(x86-64) asv: asv asv(x86-64) python3-asv(x86-64) python3.6dist(asv) python3dist(asv) Unversioned so-files -------------------- asv: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/asv/_rangemedian.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so - That's fine. False positive. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/asv/asv-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82a3128cb6598a683db62aa51d74bf7dd5a48a5b357c9d0aee43ed1f92782f15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82a3128cb6598a683db62aa51d74bf7dd5a48a5b357c9d0aee43ed1f92782f15 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1515053 Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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 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
