https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889021
Andy Mender <andymenderu...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderu...@gmail.com> ---
Overall looks good, but there is a problem with font bundling typical of
sphinx-based -doc subpackages. Sadly, I don't think it can be avoided.
Package approved. Full review below:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 123 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-mrcrowbar/python-
mrcrowbar/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.
[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. 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 installs properly.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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
python3-mrcrowbar
Reviewer: It would probably make sense to make the
python3-%{pypi_name}-doc
subpackage depend on python3-%{pypi_name} like so:
Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release}
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-mrcrowbar-0.8.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python-mrcrowbar-doc-0.8.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python-mrcrowbar-0.8.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US esque -> ques
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcdiff
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcdump
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcgrep
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrchist
python3-mrcrowbar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mrcpix
python-mrcrowbar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US esque -> ques
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: no installed packages by name python3-mrcrowbar
(none): E: no installed packages by name python-mrcrowbar-doc
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/moralrecordings/mrcrowbar/archive/0.8.0/mrcrowbar-0.8.0.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
987cbf38e59120cdd22ff3c17e8a6ff127ad942942ad87f3ca8a1d1ab8b29292
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
987cbf38e59120cdd22ff3c17e8a6ff127ad942942ad87f3ca8a1d1ab8b29292
Requires
--------
python3-mrcrowbar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.9dist(setuptools)
python-mrcrowbar-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
python3-mrcrowbar:
python-mrcrowbar
python3-mrcrowbar
python3.9-mrcrowbar
python3.9dist(mrcrowbar)
python3dist(mrcrowbar)
python-mrcrowbar-doc:
python-mrcrowbar-doc
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
