https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668837 --- Comment #2 from Karel Volný <kvolny@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Issues: - It'd be nice, but not necessary IMHO, to fix the spelling unicode => Unicode Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kvolny/tmp/1668837 -python-precis_i18n/licensecheck.txt ^ 'expat' is MIT ^ the guidelines do not mandate each file to contain license signature [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. ^ rpmlint complains about _u_nicode - however, it comes from upstream, not a blocker [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ^ noarch; I haven't tested functionality elsewhere than on x86_64 [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 (items not in fedora-review:) [-]: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. ^ no locales [-]: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. ^ N/A, btw, wasn't this obsoleted? ^ ... yes, it was: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets ^ => https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/851 [-]: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [-]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [x]: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated. Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. ^ no dependencies [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ^ /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/precis_i18n-1.0.0-py3.7.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 [x]: Python modules must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg or whl from upstream into the proper directory. (See prebuilt binaries Guidelines for details). [-]: When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it won’t conflict with the main package. [-]: When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior setup. ===== 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. ^ includes LICENSE.txt [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. # rpm -i /home/kvolny/1668837-python-precis_i18n/results/python3-precis_i18n-1.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm $ python3 Python 3.7.2 (default, Jan 16 2019, 19:49:22) [GCC 8.2.1 20181215 (Red Hat 8.2.1-6)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> from precis_i18n import get_profile >>> username = get_profile('UsernameCaseMapped') >>> username.enforce('Kevin') 'kevin' >>> username.enforce('\u212Aevin') 'kevin' $ python3 Python 3.7.2 (default, Jan 16 2019, 19:49:22) [GCC 8.2.1 20181215 (Red Hat 8.2.1-6)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import precis_i18n.codec >>> 'Kevin'.encode('UsernameCasePreserved') b'Kevin' >>> '\u212Aevin'.encode('UsernameCasePreserved') b'Kevin' [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ^ noarch [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. (items not in fedora-review:) [-]: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [-]: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [-]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [-]: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Python: [x]: If you build a python module you should use the %python_provide macro. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ===== 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: python3-precis_i18n-1.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-precis_i18n-1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm python3-precis_i18n.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) usernames -> user names, user-names, surnames python3-precis_i18n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code python-precis_i18n.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) usernames -> user names, user-names, surnames python-precis_i18n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unicode -> Unicode, uni code, uni-code 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.13 starting (python version = 3.7.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): rpmlint ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 30 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install rpmlint Requires -------- python3-precis_i18n (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-precis_i18n: python3-precis_i18n python3.7dist(precis-i18n) python3dist(precis-i18n) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/byllyfish/precis_i18n/archive/v1.0.tar.gz#/precis_i18n-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6dd043fb534e5957a7cf9b5392dda3c5b4e20878c1949761203d8b4e46ca641 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6dd043fb534e5957a7cf9b5392dda3c5b4e20878c1949761203d8b4e46ca641 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/byllyfish/precis_i18n/bf8c2e247746613eabc2601f29e842b0ab0f3aea/test/derived-props-11.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4ca9a7b789692ff6c20648b1efc753f287baa190b316575a98377b9773ed1f34 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ca9a7b789692ff6c20648b1efc753f287baa190b316575a98377b9773ed1f34 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 1668837 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 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
