https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884085
Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |loganje...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganje...@gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
======
- The source RPM name should have "python-" prefixed to it, regardless of how
the prewikka package is named. See the Naming Guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_python_source_package_naming
However, since this is a SHOULD rather than a MUST, I will not block the
review on this point.
- I cannot verify that the license tag is correct. Unlike you, I don't know
the developers. Please ask them to put the license in writing somewhere,
even if it is in an email to you (which you would then includes as a source
file). Please also point out to them that term 1 of the GPL version 2
requires us to pass on the copy of the GPL we received from them ... only
they didn't give us one:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
At the very least, they should set the License field in PKG-INFO. Note that
it is not enough for them to simply add a file containing the license text
to the package. See the comment in the "GPL+" entry in this table:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
- Remove line 11 of the spec file:
Requires: python3-%{name} >= %{version}
That accomplishes nothing, since there is no binary RPM for the main package,
so the dependency doesn't appear anywhere.
- Remove line 18 of the spec file:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Since the package also Provides that name, this is a self-dependency, which
accomplishes nothing useful.
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
I am unable to verify this. See above.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
I am unable to verify this. See above.
[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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
The source package name should have a "python-" prefix. See above.
[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.
There are two unnecessary Requires. See above.
[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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Upstream should be asked to provide license text and information. See
above.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
Two Requires are unnecessary. See above.
[?]: 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.
Upstream did not provide any tests, so this is okay.
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-prewikka-updatedb-5.2.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
prewikka-updatedb-5.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-prewikka-updatedb.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-prewikka-updatedb.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://www.prelude-siem.org/pkg/src/5.2.0/prewikka-updatedb-5.2.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
bc409278d3404117a840193df3dbfd63ecc59b1fcdeb9bc974833ca45e94e8db
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bc409278d3404117a840193df3dbfd63ecc59b1fcdeb9bc974833ca45e94e8db
Requires
--------
python3-prewikka-updatedb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
prewikka-updatedb
python(abi)
python3-prewikka
Provides
--------
python3-prewikka-updatedb:
prewikka-updatedb
python-prewikka-updatedb
python3-prewikka-updatedb
python3.9-prewikka-updatedb
python3.9dist(prewikka-updatedb)
python3dist(prewikka-updatedb)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1884085 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++,
Java, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
