https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112434
Benedikt Morbach <bmorb...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bmorb...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Benedikt Morbach <bmorb...@redhat.com> ---
Note: This is an unofficial/preliminary review
> 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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bmorbach
> /fedora-review/1112434-brd/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
> /usr/lib/python3.4
those are okay, owned by python3 on rawhide (see bug 1112409)
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
> /usr/lib/python3.4
see above
> [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).
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Please do a release and package that or add the date of the commit you are
packaging
to the Release field as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag
> [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages.
> [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 %doc.
> [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
> [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.
> [-]: 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.
> [-]: 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.
> [x]: %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
> [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> [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: No rpmlint messages.
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: brd-1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
> brd-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> # rpmlint brd
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> brd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /usr/bin/python3
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> brd:
> brd
>
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/jsbackus/brd/archive/f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07/brd-f984731d36aef24e630ead0e3818efd3b0b99f07.tar.gz
> :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> c1d9f54b8d8972717f7e6cb41979d8eff46d812f5ff9034abebeaf7067d1ed38
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1112434
> 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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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
