https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081088 --- Comment #5 from Charalampos Stratakis <cstratak@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #4) > The review is basically done. Just two points to consider: > - Add the provide suggested by Miro. > - If there is a reason you cannot use the upstream tests, please add a > comment about it to the specfile. Otherwise, include the tests. > > 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or > generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2081088-ephemeral-port- > reserve/licensecheck.txt > [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 > [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. > [-]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [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]: 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: > [-]: 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. > [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 > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/e/ephemeral_port_reserve/ > ephemeral_port_reserve-1.1.4.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > b8f7da2c97090cb0801949dec1d6d40c97220505b742a70935ffbd43234c14b2 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > b8f7da2c97090cb0801949dec1d6d40c97220505b742a70935ffbd43234c14b2 > > > Requires > -------- > ephemeral-port-reserve (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > > > > Provides > -------- > ephemeral-port-reserve: > ephemeral-port-reserve > python3.10dist(ephemeral-port-reserve) > python3dist(ephemeral-port-reserve) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2081088 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic > Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, > Java > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks for the review! The comments have been addressed, could you take another look at the SPEC? -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081088 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
