https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346249
--- Comment #3 from Martin Krizek <mkri...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1)
> 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
> unknown license.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: 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.
> [x]: 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 4 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]: 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]: 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:
> [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.
> [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: 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.
> [x]: %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]: 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).
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
> resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.src.rpm
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini
> resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example
> resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini
> resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /usr/bin/python2
> fedmsg
> python(abi)
> python-alembic
> python-flask
> python-flask-login
> python-flask-restful
> python-flask-sqlalchemy
> python-flask-wtf
> python-iso8601
> python-six
> python-sqlalchemy
> python-wtforms
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> resultsdb:
> resultsdb
>
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16.
> tar.gz :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f
>
>
> Comments
> --------
> - Requirements in requirements.txt contains: package == version. Shouldn't
> be it like >= or it's working only with one version? Cause in spec are all
> Requires with >=
>
Yeah, that's intentional. We use requirements.txt just for development purposes
for installing in virtualenv.
> - Missing parameters for preventing timestamps in %install section
>
> - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed
> in /etc/* without .example suffix
Thanks for the review!
Updated version:
Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/resultsdb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc23.src.rpm
--
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
