[Bug 1750777] Review Request: python-stompest - STOMP library for Python including a synchronous client

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750777



--- Comment #10 from Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
OK, on formal review:

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.

[adamw@adam Downloads]$ rpmlint
python-stompest-2.3.0-1.20191018git715f358.fc30.src.rpm
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on
line 23: %{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error 
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on
line 23: %{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
[adamw@adam Downloads]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-31-x86_64/result/*noarch*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

(It would be good to fix those up, but I don't think they need to block
review).

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[-] MUST: 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 must be included in %license.

Please fix this - the source does contain LICENSE, so the package must ship it.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] MUST: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any
packages which have been marked as being deprecated.

So if you just add the license file to the package we're good to go. Thanks!

-- 
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux