https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015868
--- Comment #29 from Raphael Groner <projects...@smart.ms> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - In Fedora we have multiple python runtimes, one for each supported major release. At this point that's one for python2.x and one for python3.x. If a piece of software supports python3, it must be packaged for python3. If it supports python2 as well, it may be packaged for python2. If it supports only python2 then it must not be packaged for python3. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1015868-python- qutepart/licensecheck.txt => Okay, LICENSE file states LPGLv2+. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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: [-]: 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 => Please consider to build for Python3. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. => Maybe consider to execute the provided tests in subfolder. [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]: 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: [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-qutepart-2.2.0-7.1.x86_64.rpm python-qutepart-2.2.0-7.1.src.rpm python-qutepart.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es => Ignore. https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/239 python-qutepart.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.0-6 ['2.2.0-7.1', '2.2.0-7.1'] => Please fix. python-qutepart.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qutepart/syntax/cParser.so 775 => Please fix. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: python-qutepart-debuginfo-2.2.0-7.1.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-qutepart.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.2.0-6 ['2.2.0-7.1', '2.2.0-7.1'] python-qutepart.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qutepart/syntax/cParser.so 775 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/builder/fedora-review/1015868-python-qutepart/srpm/python-qutepart.spec 2015-07-21 22:10:35.504679649 +0200 +++ /home/builder/fedora-review/1015868-python-qutepart/srpm-unpacked/python-qutepart.spec 2015-05-04 09:36:23.000000000 +0200 @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ Name: python-%{project} Version: 2.2.0 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 7.1 Summary: Code editor widget for PyQt Summary(es): Componente de edición de código fuente para PyQt @@ -91,3 +91,3 @@ * Sun Sep 8 2013 Jairo Llopis <yajo....@gmail.com> 1.1.0-1 -- Initial release. \ Kein Zeilenumbruch am Dateiende. +- Initial release. Requires -------- python-qutepart (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): PyQt4 libc.so.6()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) pcre python(abi) python2 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python-qutepart: python-qutepart python-qutepart(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-qutepart: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qutepart/syntax/cParser.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hlamer/qutepart/archive/v2.2.0.tar.gz#/qutepart-2.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ac2c6dbf67f71104901260ff81a73278ac3375ebe11f3824bbe89f02fbfe562a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac2c6dbf67f71104901260ff81a73278ac3375ebe11f3824bbe89f02fbfe562a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1015868 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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
