https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372892



--- Comment #1 from William Moreno <williamjmore...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============

Packaging looks good but please ask upstream to provide a license text.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.


This should be fixed by: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372890
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages/backports, /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
     packages/backports/__pycache__

===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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).
[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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. 
[!]: 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 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]: 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:
[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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-backports-csv-1.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back
port, Back-port, Backpacker
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport
-> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str ->
st, tr, stir
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back
port, Back-port, Backpacker
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport
-> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str ->
st, tr, stir
python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back
port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport ->
Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python-backports-csv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str -> st,
tr, stir
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back
port, Back-port, Backpacker
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport
-> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python3-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str ->
st, tr, stir
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back
port, Back-port, Backpacker
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Backport
-> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker
python2-backports-csv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US str ->
st, tr, stir
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Requires
--------
python3-backports-csv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python2-backports-csv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python-backports

Provides
--------
python3-backports-csv:
    python3-backports-csv
    python3.5dist(backports.csv)
    python3dist(backports.csv)

python2-backports-csv:
    python-backports-csv
    python2-backports-csv
    python2.7dist(backports.csv)
    python2dist(backports.csv)

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ryanhiebert/backports.csv/archive/1.0.1/backports-csv-1.0.1.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
aef767b8b5a1aefb1578f22f427bfa929c4b3cd3697c2ce67723c8caab929fd6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
aef767b8b5a1aefb1578f22f427bfa929c4b3cd3697c2ce67723c8caab929fd6

-- 
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

Reply via email to