https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582472
Nils Philippsen <nphil...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen <nphil...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
--> ... = Comments
===== 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
--> The old linter code is GPLv3+ as well as some stuff Petr Hracek
committed (he added the GPLv3 license text to the sources).
--> should be GPLv3+
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
--> However, it's much too detailed. It should only contain packaging
changes, like "new upstream version X" and "add patch that fixes FOO". I'd
suggest starting from scratch with one "initial import" entry. Detailed
upstream changelogs can be shipped as %doc files.
[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).
--> NB: "%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}" is the same as "%autosetup"
alone.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
--> Requires python3-setuptools for runtime but it looks like this is only
necessary for building.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
--> NB: Since we're (not yet) providing a module for other packages to
consume, it's fine to not list the provides as they're considered internal
to the package. This might change later if/when we split out commands.
[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.
For completeness sake, we could add the MIT license text for the remaining
files covered by it.
[x]: 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.
[-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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)
--> We should probably upload a tarball for the release to Pagure, then we
can reference its download URL here.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: fedmod-0.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
fedmod-0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) modulemd -> module, modulo
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackages -> meta
packages, meta-packages, packages
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module,
modulo
fedmod.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedmod.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_fedmod/__main__.py /usr/bin/env python3
fedmod.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_fedmod/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
fedmod.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedmod
fedmod.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) modulemd -> module, modulo
fedmod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackages -> meta
packages, meta-packages, packages
fedmod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module, modulo
fedmod.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fedmod-0.1.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 9 warnings.
--> see above re: source URL
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) modulemd -> module, modulo
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackages -> meta
packages, meta-packages, packages
fedmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulemd -> module,
modulo
fedmod.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pagure.io/modularity/fedmod <urlopen
error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
fedmod.noarch: W: no-documentation
fedmod.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_fedmod/__main__.py /usr/bin/env python3
fedmod.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/_fedmod/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
fedmod.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedmod
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.
--> we could get rid of the hash bang lines if the files are not executable
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/nils/devel/reviews/fedora/1582472/fedmod.spec 2018-05-25
15:00:51.581983864 +0200
+++
/home/nils/devel/reviews/fedora/1582472/review-fedmod/srpm-unpacked/fedmod.spec
2018-05-25 12:35:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -14,8 +14,6 @@
BuildRequires: python3-setuptools
-Requires: libmodulemd >= 1.2.0
Requires: python3-attrs
Requires: python3-click
-Requires: python3-gobject-base
Requires: python3-lxml
Requires: python3-modulemd
@@ -52,20 +50,6 @@
%changelog
-* Fri May 25 2018 Karsten Hopp <kars...@redhat.com>
+* Fri May 25 2018 Karsten Hopp <kars...@redhat.com> 0.1-1
- Update version metadata for release 0.1 (kars...@redhat.com)
-- _depchase: Remove some stray assignments (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- add mapping package/module for dependencies (kars...@redhat.com)
-- Enable the Fedora updates repository (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- depchase: Handle duplicate packages in the pool (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- Fix problem resolving relative paths to updates repo (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- Use RPM metadata as the basis for summary and description
- (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- Use a cache for dependency details (otay...@fishsoup.net)
-- update maintainer (kars...@redhat.com)
-- disable updates for now, move that to a new issue (kars...@redhat.com)
-- break out unrelated commit (kars...@redhat.com)
-- add module updates (kars...@redhat.com)
-- libmodulemd fixes (kars...@redhat.com)
-- Use libmodulemd instead of modulemd (otay...@fishsoup.net)
* Thu Apr 05 2018 Karsten Hopp <kars...@redhat.com> 0.0.10-1
@@ -132,8 +116,4 @@
- don't import from __future__ (n...@redhat.com)
-* Thu Apr 05 2018 Karsten Hopp <kars...@redhat.com> - 0.0.10-1
-- update for F28 (Owen Taylor)
-- look at pre-reqs for package dependencies, too (Owen Taylor)
-
* Wed Dec 06 2017 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> 0.0.9-1
- Update version metadata for release 0.0.9 (ncogh...@gmail.com)
--> I don't see a reason to leave the spec file in here at all, get rid of it?
Requires
--------
fedmod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3-PyYAML
python3-attrs
python3-click
python3-lxml
python3-modulemd
python3-requests
python3-requests-toolbelt
python3-setuptools
python3-smartcols
python3-solv
Provides
--------
fedmod:
fedmod
python3.6dist(fedmod)
python3dist(fedmod)
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n fedmod
Buildroot used: fedora-27-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EE3JP5EBU5OSEVHJGS63HVY2ZGXGPW76/
