https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233263
Sören Möller changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||soerenmoeller2...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Sören Möller ---
I have tried to review the package as a review comment (I have not the
permission to do package reviews yet). Note that I only have limited experience
with python-packages, so while I tried to closly follow the guidelines for
python-package I might have misunderstood part of it.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/mininet-2.2.1-py2.7.egg-info/PKG-INFO
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
- Package is not relocatable.
Note: Package has a "Prefix:" tag
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: Mininet.spec should be mininet.spec
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name
- rpmlint gives a lot of "E: non-executable-script" errors, which indicate
wrong permissions on files in the package
- The package puts files in /usr/bin (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin why
this might be a problem)
(see further comments below, inside the list)
= 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.
Only license information is "BSD" found in the "PKG-INFO" file
[-]: 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.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
Only license information is "BSD" found in the "PKG-INFO" file
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/mininet/examples, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mininet
Presumably this package should create these directories
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/mininet, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/mininet/examples
Presumably this package should create these directories
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
No requires, althoug I suppose it requires python (?)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
See the issues outlined in this list
[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 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]: 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 A
