https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704258 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Is there a reason to use %define instead of %global in the header? %define mingw32_py3_libdir %{mingw32_libdir}/python%{py_ver} %define mingw64_py3_libdir %{mingw64_libdir}/python%{py_ver} %define mingw32_py3_hostlibdir %{_prefix}/%{mingw32_target}/lib/python%{py_ver} %define mingw64_py3_hostlibdir %{_prefix}/%{mingw64_target}/lib/python%{py_ver} %define mingw32_py3_incdir %{mingw32_includedir}/python%{py_ver}m %define mingw64_py3_incdir %{mingw64_includedir}/python%{py_ver}m %define mingw32_python3_sitearch %{mingw32_libdir}/python%{py_ver}/site-packages %define mingw64_python3_sitearch %{mingw64_libdir}/python%{py_ver}/site-packages 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Expat License", "Apache License (v2.0)", "Python Software Foundation License", "zlib/libpng license", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All Permissive License", "Expat License Apache License (v2.0)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License curl License", "BSD (unspecified)", "Python Software Foundation License (v2) GNU General Public License", "Unicode strict", "Microsoft Reciprocal License". 3736 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw- python3/review-mingw-python3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-python3 , mingw64-python3 [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw32-python3 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python-3.7.pc mingw32-python3 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python-3.7m.pc mingw32-python3 : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python3.pc mingw64-python3 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python-3.7.pc mingw64-python3 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python-3.7m.pc mingw64-python3 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/python3.pc [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define mingw32_py3_libdir %{mingw32_libdir}/python%{py_ver}, %define mingw64_py3_libdir %{mingw64_libdir}/python%{py_ver}, %define mingw32_py3_hostlibdir %{_prefix}/%{mingw32_target}/lib/python%{py_ver}, %define mingw64_py3_hostlibdir %{_prefix}/%{mingw64_target}/lib/python%{py_ver}, %define mingw32_py3_incdir %{mingw32_includedir}/python%{py_ver}m, %define mingw64_py3_incdir %{mingw64_includedir}/python%{py_ver}m, %define mingw32_python3_sitearch %{mingw32_libdir}/python%{py_ver}/site- packages, %define mingw64_python3_sitearch %{mingw64_libdir}/python%{py_ver}/site-packages [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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
