https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250344

Alan Pevec <ape...@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+
                   |needinfo?(ape...@gmail.com) |



--- Comment #5 from Alan Pevec <ape...@gmail.com> ---
So Vendor thing is a bug in fedora-review, actually!
Either way, %{driver} as macro name is better, it might not always be a
particular vendor behind the driver.

rpmlint also complains about gid neutron and perms 640 on config files but
those are correct.
But please, before import replace TAB in line 28 and make version in changelog
match Version: field, to indulge nitpickers like me.
More nitpicks:
* %{python2_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info hurts
to read, why not simply:
%{python2_sitelib}/*.egg-info
?

* use pypi URL instead of tarballs.o.o ?

* SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 won't prevent including requirements.txt into egginfo, we
still need rm -rf {test-,}requirements.txt in %prep but that can be a followup.

APPROVED

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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: /etc/neutron is owned by openstack-neutron-common in Requires
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     Note: please fix W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2015.1.2-1 before
import
[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
     Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 38 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: rpmlint commented at the top.
[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 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]: 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 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:
[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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: should use pypi URL instead of tarballs.o.o
[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:
[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-networking-cisco-2015.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          python-networking-cisco-2015.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2015.1.2-1
['2015.1.0-1.fc24', '2015.1.0-1']
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/ml2_conf_cisco.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/ml2_conf_cisco.ini
0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_plugins.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/cisco_plugins.ini
0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/ml2_conf_ncs.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/ml2_conf_ncs.ini
0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_cfg_agent.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_cfg_agent.ini 0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_router_plugin.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_router_plugin.ini 0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_vpn_agent.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_vpn_agent.ini 0640L
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
neutron-cisco-cfg-agent
python-networking-cisco.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line
8, tab: line 28)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2015.1.2-1
['2015.1.0-1.fc24', '2015.1.0-1']
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_plugins.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/cisco_plugins.ini
640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_router_plugin.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_router_plugin.ini 640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/ml2_conf_cisco.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/ml2_conf_cisco.ini
640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_vpn_agent.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_vpn_agent.ini 640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/ml2_conf_ncs.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/neutron/ml2_conf_ncs.ini
640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: non-standard-gid
/etc/neutron/cisco_cfg_agent.ini neutron
python-networking-cisco.noarch: E: non-readable
/etc/neutron/cisco_cfg_agent.ini 640
python-networking-cisco.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
neutron-cisco-cfg-agent
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 8 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-networking-cisco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/python2
    config(python-networking-cisco)
    openstack-neutron-common
    python(abi)
    python-babel
    python-pbr
    systemd



Provides
--------
python-networking-cisco:
    config(python-networking-cisco)
    python-networking-cisco



Source checksums
----------------
http://tarballs.openstack.org/networking-cisco/networking-cisco-2015.1.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c75e5ce0d93c058e3bfcfbd9e208fb5fcc36b0883d2a55e00e2ad95ab591a4d9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c75e5ce0d93c058e3bfcfbd9e208fb5fcc36b0883d2a55e00e2ad95ab591a4d9


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1250344
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, 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

Reply via email to