https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1664926 --- Comment #2 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== 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]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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: python3-lesspass-6.1.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-lesspass-6.1.0-1.fc30.src.rpm python3-lesspass.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US generatorUsage -> generator Usage, generator-usage, generator python3-lesspass.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US env -> enc, en, envy python3-lesspass.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US promptOptions -> prompt Options, prompt-options, proscriptions python3-lesspass.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 python3-lesspass.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-lesspass.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lesspass python-lesspass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US generatorUsage -> generator Usage, generator-usage, generator python-lesspass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US env -> enc, en, envy python-lesspass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US promptOptions -> prompt Options, prompt-options, proscriptions python-lesspass.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. -> Please fix this and I can approve package Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-lesspass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-lesspass: python3-lesspass python3.7dist(lesspass) python3dist(lesspass) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/lesspass/lesspass-6.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58d51f47bd3a533acdd313b663162ae5ce8bd63a8dbad8e5c5b446e8ab18214c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58d51f47bd3a533acdd313b663162ae5ce8bd63a8dbad8e5c5b446e8ab18214c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1664926 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
