https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218127
Haïkel Guémar <karlthe...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthe...@gmail.com> ---
+1 trivial things like that could be fixed at import time.
Since this package complies with Fedora Packaging guidelines, I hereby approve
it into
Fedora Packages Collection. Please submit a SCM request.
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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/haikel/1218127-pagure/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/httpd, /etc/httpd/conf.d
[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.
[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 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[-]: 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 pagure-
milters
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Files in /run, var/run and /var/lock uses tmpfiles.d when appropriate
[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: pagure-0.1.2-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
pagure-milters-0.1.2-2.fc23.noarch.rpm
pagure-0.1.2-2.fc23.src.rpm
pagure.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/hooks/files/post-receive 0644L
/bin/bash
pagure.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/pagure/pagure_createdb.py
0644L /usr/bin/env
pagure.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/static/emoji/emojione.sprites.css
pagure.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pagure/hooks/debug.pyc
pagure-milters.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Milter -> Mister,
Miller, Filter
pagure-milters.noarch: W: no-documentation
pagure-milters.noarch: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/pagure
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
pagure (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/env
config(pagure)
gitolite
mod_wsgi
python(abi)
python-alembic
python-arrow
python-blinker
python-chardet
python-docutils
python-fedora
python-flask
python-flask-wtf
python-markdown
python-munch
python-openid
python-openid-cla
python-openid-teams
python-psutil
python-pygit2
python-pygments
python-sqlalchemy
python-straight-plugin
python-wtforms
pagure-milters (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
postfix
python-pymilter
systemd
Provides
--------
pagure:
config(pagure)
pagure
pagure-milters:
pagure-milters
Source checksums
----------------
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/a/pagure/pagure-0.1.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
487eedb5b1b4b4fe9c613421478137edff3a24fe6f5eae276e74d948cf0ef96c
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
487eedb5b1b4b4fe9c613421478137edff3a24fe6f5eae276e74d948cf0ef96c
--
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
