https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084
Pranav Kant <pranav...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pranav...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Pranav Kant <pranav...@gmail.com> ---
This is an unofficial review only.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
Your package contains only python-devel. If you need both python2, python3,
you need to add both of these as separate BRs, otherwise only add one of
these.
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Please don't use a mixture of macro style and variable style. Keep it
consistent throughout the spec file.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
Your package includes electrum.desktop file but doesn't use
desktop-file-install to install this desktop file. Also add a BR:
desktop-file-utils for this.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains
desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
Since, this package involves a desktop file, you probably need to add these
sections.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
database
- Use %license and move LICENSE file from %doc to %license.
See :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image
- You need to change %{__python} macro to specifically %{__python2} or 3 in
your
spec file. Unversioned python macros are deprecated.
- Use versioned python_sitelib in %files instead of unversioned
%{__python_sitelib}
- Your package doesn't include the *.egg-info in %files.
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep probably.
===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11
(BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 44
files have unknown license.
Please make sure that you mention all of these licenses in License field
in
spec file or put an *effective* license in that field.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/ar_SA/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/locale/eo_UY/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ky_KG,
/usr/share/locale/eo_UY, /usr/share/locale/ky_KG/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/locale/ar_SA
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/locale/eo_UY/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/eo_UY,
/usr/share/locale/ar_SA, /usr/share/locale/ky_KG,
/usr/share/locale/ky_KG/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ar_SA/LC_MESSAGES
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
You use macros at most of the places but there is still some scope. You
can
use %{name} when installing binaries and other files in %{datadir}.
[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.
[?]: 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.
This doesn't have large documentation.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
Python:
[!]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Probably you need to do rm -rf %{name}.egg-info. I am not sure about this.
[?]: 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
===== 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[?]: 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.
[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.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: electrum-1.9.8-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
electrum-1.9.8-1.fc21.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
--------
electrum (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
PyQt4
python
python(abi)
python-ecdsa
python-slowaes
Provides
--------
electrum:
application()
application(electrum.desktop)
electrum
mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/bitcoin)
Source checksums
----------------
https://download.electrum.org/Electrum-1.9.8.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8fc144a32013e4a747fea27fff981762a6b9e14cde9ffb405c4c721975d846ff
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8fc144a32013e4a747fea27fff981762a6b9e14cde9ffb405c4c721975d846ff
--
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
