https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946
--- Comment #1 from Luis Bazan <bazanlui...@gmail.com> ---
rpmlint:
Checking: python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
python-SimpleCV.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simplecv
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070946-python-
SimpleCV/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 256000 bytes in 25 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.35 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.35
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.35
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070946-python-SimpleCV/results/python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-20-i386/root/',
'install',
'/home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070946-python-SimpleCV/results/python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm',
'--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts']
Error: Paquete: python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch
(/python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch)
Necesita: python-svgwrite
Podría intentar utilizar el comando --skip-broken para sortear el problema
Podría intentar ejecutar: rpm- Va --nofiles --nodigest
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
python-SimpleCV-1.3-1.fc20.src.rpm
python-SimpleCV.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary simplecv
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070946-python-SimpleCV/srpm/python-SimpleCV.spec
2014-03-10 11:30:00.775301971 -0500
+++
/home/lbazan/rpmbuild/SPECS/1070946-python-SimpleCV/srpm-unpacked/python-SimpleCV.spec
2014-02-27 05:45:03.000000000 -0500
@@ -23,12 +23,12 @@
%build
-%{__python2} setup.py build
+%{__python} setup.py build
%install
-%{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
# Remove shebang
-for lib in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib}/SimpleCV/{,*/,*/*}/*.py; do
+for lib in %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/SimpleCV/{,*/,*/*}/*.py; do
sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new &&
touch -r $lib $lib.new &&
@@ -36,5 +36,5 @@
done
-for lib in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib}/SimpleCV/{,*/,*/*}/*.py; do
+for lib in %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/SimpleCV/{,*/,*/*}/*.py; do
sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/python@d}' $lib > $lib.new &&
touch -r $lib $lib.new &&
@@ -46,9 +46,9 @@
%doc CHANGELOG.txt LICENSE README.markdown requirements.txt doc/*
%{_bindir}/simplecv
-%{python2_sitelib}/SimpleCV-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/
-%{python2_sitelib}/SimpleCV/
+%{python_sitelib}/SimpleCV-1.3-py2.7.egg-info/
+%{python_sitelib}/SimpleCV/
%changelog
-* Sun Feb 09 2014 Julien Enselme <juj...@jujens.eu> - 1.3-1
+* Sun Feb 09 2014 Julien Enselme <jense...@ec-m.fr> - 1.3-1
- Initial packaging
Requires
--------
python-SimpleCV (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
numpy
opencv-python
pygame
python(abi)
python-ipython
python-pip
python-setuptools
python-svgwrite
scipy
Provides
--------
python-SimpleCV:
python-SimpleCV
Source checksums
----------------
http://sourceforge.net/projects/simplecv/files/1.3/SimpleCV-1.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7a0aaf61f357a78429ff4409f75d4ac67b9924f06013245706a3ccfcff8c92b0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7a0aaf61f357a78429ff4409f75d4ac67b9924f06013245706a3ccfcff8c92b0
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1070946
Buildroot used: fedora-20-i386
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
