https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019948
--- Comment #5 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.es...@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 875488 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=875488&action=edit improved spec-file Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 306 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1019948-python- astroML/licensecheck.txt ---> license-tag is fine. :) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. ---> see comments below. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present. [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 %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 [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. ---> please remove that, unless you want to build for el5... [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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- astroML-doc ---> false positive. doc-pkg is fine to install without that deps. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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: [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: python-astroML-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-astroML-doc-0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm python-astroML-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm python-astroML.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib python-astroML.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scikit -> sci kit, sci-kit, kitsch python-astroML.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matplotlib -> diplomatic python-astroML.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.astroml.org/ <urlopen error timed out> python-astroML.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scikit -> sci kit, sci-kit, kitsch python-astroML.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matplotlib -> diplomatic python-astroML.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases python-astroML.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.astroml.org/ <urlopen error timed out> python-astroML.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/astroML/astroML-0.2.tar.gz <urlopen error timed out> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-astroML-doc python-astroML python-astroML-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.astroml.org/ <urlopen error timed out> python-astroML.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-matplotlib python-astroML.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scikit -> sci kit, sci-kit, kitsch python-astroML.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matplotlib -> diplomatic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> false positives, ignored. Requires -------- python-astroML-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-astroML (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi) python-astropy python-matplotlib python-scikit-learn scipy Provides -------- python-astroML-doc: python-astroML-doc python-astroML: python-astroML Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/a/astroML/astroML-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d243b96b7d898f4cf0cb8b6ef6e37d08b6439e4a8461aaa8b20ee412112c2c09 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d243b96b7d898f4cf0cb8b6ef6e37d08b6439e4a8461aaa8b20ee412112c2c09 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1019948 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 ===== Comments on spec-file ===== - %package -n python-astroML-doc ---> not needed: %package doc will inherit and prepend the value of %{name}. Same goes for %files and %description. - Provides: %{name}-doc = %{version}-%{release} ---> not needed: this provides will be done by rpm-automagick. - You can remove the comment about `CFLAGS` in %build. - Name: python-astroML ---> I'd suggest to use `%global pypi_name astroML` on top of spec and replace `astroML` with that macro (%{pypi_name}). That makes the spec-file more generic and usable for other pkgs, too. ;) example: Name: python-%{pypi_name} - You should use the %{python2_version}-macro for packaging of the generated egg. ---> %{python2_sitelib}/astroML-%{version}-*.egg-info %{python2_sitelib}/astroML-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info - You can safely drop the BuildArch: noarch from the subpackages, since the main-pkg is noarch, all subpkgs are automatically noarch'ed, too. - Make sure to kill all trailing white-space chars from the spec: ---> sed -i -e 's![ \t]*$!!g' $specfile - To get all those changes quickly, you may use the attached patch. ===== Solution ===== NOT approved. Please fixup the spec-file and I'll recheck asap. Make sure to properly bump the revision. -- 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
