https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864315
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> --- Hi Robin, Here's the review: [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue ** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [+] rpmlint output: [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/lonote.spec lonote-1.8.7-1.fc17.src.rpm lonote.src: W: strange-permission lonote.spec 0600L lonote.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup ../SPECS/lonote.spec:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup lonote.src: W: strange-permission lonote.spec 0600L lonote.src:22: W: macro-in-comment %setup 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ ^^ Looks okay. The permissions of the spec etc are wrong for some reason though. [+] License is acceptable [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [-] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ review-md5check.sh ../SPECS/lonote.spec Getting http://lonote.googlecode.com/files/lonote-1.8.7.7z to /tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 532k 100 532k 0 0 362k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 450k 019878f95567dde43dcb5e4a07660c07 /tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z 019878f95567dde43dcb5e4a07660c07 /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/lonote-1.8.7.7z removed `/tmp/review/lonote-1.8.7.7z' removed directory: `/tmp/review' [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [+] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [-] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files [+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [-] %doc files not required at runtime [+] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [+] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8 ** Optional review guidelines: ** [-] Query upstream about including license files [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) ^ Not verified. Please verify [-] Scriptlets are sane [-] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [-] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [-] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [+] Include man pages if available Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [-] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly Packaging guidelines: [-] Useful without external bits [-] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [-] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [-] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [-] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [-] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [-] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [-] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [-] No static executables [-] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [-] No config files under /usr [-] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [+] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate ^^ You can replace lonote in the URL and SOURCE0 tags with %{name} too. Just a cosmetic change The python packaging page suggests the usage of the %{__python3} macro: Another cosmetic change [+] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts ** Python guidelines: ** [+] Runtime Requires correct [-] Python macros declared on < EL6 [-] All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts [+] Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated [+] Provides/Requires properly filtered [-] Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy Looks good. Minor cosmetic issues at the most. Please make the changes before you import the package to SCM XXX APPROVED XXX Thanks, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review