[Bug 1134020] Review Request: python-pykalman - Kalman Filter, Smoother, and EM Algorithm
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Aug 29 17:18:13 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134020
Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev at der-flo.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner <dev at der-flo.net> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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:
"BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
[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 593920 bytes in 43 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]: 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 %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 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]: 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.
[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.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
---> I'm ok with this. It's not a blocker for this package.
[x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python-
pykalman-doc , python3-pykalman , python3-pykalman-doc
[x]: 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.
---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7487021
[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.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python-pykalman-0.9.5-1.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22.noarch.rpm
python-pykalman-doc-0.9.5-1.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22.noarch.rpm
python3-pykalman-0.9.5-1.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22.noarch.rpm
python3-pykalman-doc-0.9.5-1.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22.noarch.rpm
python-pykalman-0.9.5-1.20140827git2aeb4ad.fc22.src.rpm
python-pykalman.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kalman -> Almanac
python-pykalman.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python-pykalman-doc.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python3-pykalman.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kalman -> Almanac
python3-pykalman.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python3-pykalman-doc.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python-pykalman.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kalman -> Almanac
python-pykalman.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint python-pykalman python3-pykalman-doc python3-pykalman
python-pykalman-doc
python-pykalman.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kalman -> Almanac
python-pykalman.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python3-pykalman-doc.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python3-pykalman.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Kalman -> Almanac
python3-pykalman.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
python-pykalman-doc.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2014-08-30
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
python-pykalman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-pykalman-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python3-pykalman
python3-pykalman (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python-pykalman-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python-pykalman
Provides
--------
python-pykalman:
python-pykalman
python3-pykalman-doc:
python3-pykalman-doc
python3-pykalman:
python3-pykalman
python-pykalman-doc:
python-pykalman-doc
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pykalman/pykalman/archive/2aeb4ad80f9dcc4ea182331e33bda7ea4866548e/pykalman-2aeb4ad80f9dcc4ea182331e33bda7ea4866548e.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
dd56c8ed5738516a8a7af8a9aa69c3325810851e1336bd930e390cc785be8251
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dd56c8ed5738516a8a7af8a9aa69c3325810851e1336bd930e390cc785be8251
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1134020
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
===== Solution =====
APPROVED
--
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
More information about the package-review
mailing list