https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744249 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - MUST: Package owns /etc - SHOULD: Stray shebangs: wrong-script-interpreter non-executable-script - SHOULD: The manual dependency on python2-setuptools should be removed. Please also double check: python2-pip.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pip2 (But maybe this is the case with all bash_completion files.) ===== 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. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc(filesystem) THIS IS WRONG. /etc/bash_completion.d(perl-App-Cme, python3-heatclient, koschei- admin, freeipa-client, clusterssh, filesystem, iprutils, lttng-tools, awscli, python3-glanceclient, singularity, git-extras, phoronix-test- suite, openscap-scanner, RBTools, python3-manilaclient, python3-novaclient, quilt, pdc-client, stgit, perl-Dist-Zilla, bash- completion) - that is on purpose. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Well it does, but documents it. [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. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. It does, but it will be coordinated. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. It does not, as all noarch Python packages. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Only the source is renamed. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Technically it doesn't as it is Python 2, but it is a rename. [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. No. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, see comments [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: python2-pip-19.1.1-8.fc32.noarch.rpm python2-pip-19.1.1-8.fc32.src.rpm python2-pip.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc python2-pip.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pip2 python2-pip.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_internal/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_internal/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/appdirs.py /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/appdirs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/chardet/cli/chardetect.py /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/chardet/cli/chardetect.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip-2 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip-2.7 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip2 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip2.7 python2-pip.src: W: invalid-url Source1: pip-19.1.1-tests.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 6 warnings. The shebangs should be killed. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-pip.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.pip-installer.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-pip.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc python2-pip.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/pip2 python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_internal/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/appdirs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/chardet/cli/chardetect.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pip/_vendor/requests/certs.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip-2 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip-2.7 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip2 python2-pip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pip2.7 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings. The shebangs should be killed. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pip/pip-19.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44d3d7d3d30a1eb65c7e5ff1173cdf8f7467850605ac7cc3707b6064bddd0958 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44d3d7d3d30a1eb65c7e5ff1173cdf8f7467850605ac7cc3707b6064bddd0958 Requires -------- python2-pip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 ca-certificates python(abi) python2-setuptools python2.7dist(setuptools) The manual dependency on python2-setuptools should be removed. Provides -------- python2-pip: bundled(python2dist(CacheControl)) bundled(python2dist(appdirs)) bundled(python2dist(certifi)) bundled(python2dist(chardet)) bundled(python2dist(colorama)) bundled(python2dist(distlib)) bundled(python2dist(distro)) bundled(python2dist(html5lib)) bundled(python2dist(idna)) bundled(python2dist(ipaddress)) bundled(python2dist(lockfile)) bundled(python2dist(msgpack)) bundled(python2dist(packaging)) bundled(python2dist(pep517)) bundled(python2dist(progress)) bundled(python2dist(pyparsing)) bundled(python2dist(pytoml)) bundled(python2dist(requests)) bundled(python2dist(retrying)) bundled(python2dist(setuptools)) bundled(python2dist(six)) bundled(python2dist(urllib3)) bundled(python2dist(webencodings)) python2-pip python2.7dist(pip) python2dist(pip) -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
