https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578238
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
>As you can see there are new (and useful!) binaries in this Python
>implementation. However, I will need to rename the /usr/bin/scan-build to
>avoid conflicting with clang-analyzer. I'm open to suggestions on how to
>handle this.
py-scan-build?
- Name your SPEC the same name as the package, i.e. python-scan-build
- Can't install the package:
DEBUG util.py:485: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on mer. 16 mai
2018 16:17:26 CEST.
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3dist(typing)
needed by python3-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch
There's a python2-typing but no python3-typing beecause "in Python 3.5 and
later, the typing module lives in the stdlib, and installing this package has
NO EFFECT." So I guess you can safely remove that BR for the Py3 subpackage.
Just update the SPEC with the rename and the BR hnage and I'll approve it.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-scan-build
/review-python-scan-build/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: 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 20480 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
-scan-build , python3-scan-build
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Bad spec filename: /home/bob/packaging/review/python-scan-build
/review-python-scan-build/srpm-unpacked/scan-build.spec
See: (this test has no URL)
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
python3-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
python-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.src.rpm
python2-scan-build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g
cc
python2-scan-build.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/libear/ear.c
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g
cc
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/libear/ear.c
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-build
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-c++
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-cc
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-build
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-c++
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-cc
python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scan-build
python-scan-build.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc
python-scan-build.src: E: invalid-spec-name
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.
--
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
