https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119095
--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <mic...@michel-slm.name> ---
Full review -- there are several more issues
Summary:
- documentation probably should be split (end users don't need them)
- you should run the tests that upstream provide
Apart from these and the initial issues from the previous comments this look
quite good, hopefully we can get this in soon. Nice work!
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
=> this is expected
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1119095-python-
djvulibre/licensecheck.txt
License should be GPLv2, not GPLv2+
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
see previous comment
[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.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: 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 563200 bytes in 53 files.
Documentation is about as big as the rest of the package, I'd
suggest splitting a -doc subpackage as it's only needed by
developers, not users of apps that use djvulibre
[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 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 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.
[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.
will do a scratch build in Koji later
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
There are some test files in tests/ that should be easily
runnable (requires additional BuildRequires on python-nose),
might want to run them
[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:
[!]: 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)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-djvulibre-0.3.9-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
python-djvulibre-0.3.9-2.fc20.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-djvulibre
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1119095-python-djvulibre/srpm/python-djvulibre.spec
2014-07-16 10:41:22.097479760 +0700
+++
/home/michel/sources/fedora/reviews/1119095-python-djvulibre/srpm-unpacked/python-djvulibre.spec
2014-07-15 06:41:48.000000000 +0700
@@ -54,5 +54,5 @@
%{__python2} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
-# Fix non-standard (0775) executable permissions on private shared libraries
+# Fix non-standard executable permissions on private shared libraries
%{__chmod} 0755 %{buildroot}%{python2_sitearch}/djvu/sexpr.so
%{__chmod} 0755 %{buildroot}%{python2_sitearch}/djvu/decode.so
@@ -67,5 +67,5 @@
%changelog
* Mon Jul 14 2014 Brian Stinson <bstin...@ksu.edu> - 0.3.9-2
-- Incorporate suggested macro removals and changes from jduncan and cicku
+- Incorporate suggested macro removals and changes from jducan and cicku
* Sun Jul 13 2014 Brian Stinson <bstin...@ksu.edu> - 0.3.9-1
Requires
--------
python-djvulibre (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdjvulibre.so.21()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit)
python(abi)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
python-djvulibre:
python-djvulibre
python-djvulibre(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python-djvulibre: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/djvu/decode.so
python-djvulibre: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/djvu/sexpr.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-djvulibre/python-djvulibre-0.3.9.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ca11e57ae14161788ba8ee48063136f3fa12aad887035a36c3b2bfb8346c1a44
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ca11e57ae14161788ba8ee48063136f3fa12aad887035a36c3b2bfb8346c1a44
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1119095 -m fedora-20-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-20-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
