https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798944 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Aniket Pradhan from comment #1) > Just some small nits > > > > 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/major/Documents/NeuroFed/reviews/review-python- > littleutils/licensecheck.txt > ^ The review tool is also identifying the following files as licenses. > littleutils-0.2.2/PKG-INFO > littleutils-0.2.2/littleutils/__init__.py > littleutils-0.2.2/setup.cfg > littleutils-0.2.2/setup.py > I don't see a problem with the spec, so it seems to be fine. +1, seems to be a false positive: $ licensecheck -r . ./PKG-INFO: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./setup.cfg: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN ./littleutils/__init__.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN > > [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site- > packages/littleutils(Failed, set, locale,, C, to, defaulting), > /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/littleutils-0.2.2-py3.8.egg- > info(Failed, set, locale,, C, to, defaulting), > /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/littleutils/__pycache__(Failed, set, > locale,, C, to, defaulting), > /usr/share/licenses/python3-littleutils(Failed, set, locale,, C, to, > defaulting) > ^ Is the review tool having a stroke? > Anyways, I again don't see a problem with spec, but I guess you can use the > '-p' > flag to copy the license. Added -p, the files/folders are correctly owned from the looks of it. > > [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 > [-]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. > [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. > [-]: 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: > [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > [-]: 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. > [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-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm > python-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm > python3-littleutils.noarch: W: no-documentation > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > perl: warning: Setting locale failed. > perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: > LANGUAGE = (unset), > LC_ALL = (unset), > LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", > LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" > are supported and installed on your system. > perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). > perl: warning: Setting locale failed. > perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: > LANGUAGE = (unset), > LC_ALL = (unset), > LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", > LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" > are supported and installed on your system. > perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). > python3-littleutils.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: > https://pypi.org/pypi/littleutils <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service > not known> > python3-littleutils.noarch: W: no-documentation > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > > ^ Not sure what the perl warnings are about. > The rpmlint warnings can be ignored, as there is no documentation (neither a > README) provided for the > package. > That's a locale warning from rpmlint, but it doesn't affect the rpmlint output. So that's OK. > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alexmojaki/littleutils/master/LICENSE : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > dfe14f8798c400cbcc85bb4536a686c6fcf3086b3446c3f7c7054a2bcd73ca6a > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > dfe14f8798c400cbcc85bb4536a686c6fcf3086b3446c3f7c7054a2bcd73ca6a > https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/littleutils/littleutils-0.2. > 2.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > e6cae3a4203e530d51c9667ed310ffe3b1948f2876e3d69605b3de4b7d96916f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > e6cae3a4203e530d51c9667ed310ffe3b1948f2876e3d69605b3de4b7d96916f > > > Requires > -------- > python3-littleutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > python(abi) > > > > Provides > -------- > python3-littleutils: > python-littleutils > python3-littleutils > python3.8dist(littleutils) > python3dist(littleutils) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-littleutils > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python > Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, R, fonts, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, > Perl > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Updated spec: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-littleutils/python-littleutils.spec Updated srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-littleutils/python-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Cheers, -- 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
