https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115066 Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |vpvainio@xxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #7 from Ville-Pekka Vainio <vpvainio@xxxxxx> --- What are your plans with regard to the licence headers? The package is already looking good. I'd prefer if the wget Requires was just "wget". I think it might speed up dependency resolution a bit, but I'm not sure. Other than that I'd be ready to accept the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: Maintainer has gotten upstream to add license headers to each source file. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Note: I'd prefer the wget Requires to be a package requirement, not a file. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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. [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]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/y/yle-dl/yle-dl-20220704.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b81af57852aa0004c9a0ffdc82e27189bcecee1ffaeb1ca90b6d3822c8a328e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b81af57852aa0004c9a0ffdc82e27189bcecee1ffaeb1ca90b6d3822c8a328e0 Requires -------- yle-dl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/ffmpeg /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(attrs) python3.11dist(configargparse) python3.11dist(lxml) python3.11dist(requests) Provides -------- yle-dl: python3.11dist(yle-dl) python3dist(yle-dl) yle-dl Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2115066 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, R, Perl, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2115066 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
