[Bug 1192969] Review Request: python-hardware - Hardware detection and classification utilities
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 19 21:23:01 UTC 2015
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192969
--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande at gmail.com> ---
- Please, explicate files packaged and located in %{python2_sitelib} and
%{python3_sitelib}. These two directories must not be owned.
- Please, check 'strange-permission' and 'hidden-file-or-dir'
warnings.
- We can't perform tests because of missing dependencies.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1192969-python-hardware/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages(python3-libs), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages(python-libs)
[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.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[!]: 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]: 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.
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
Note: Test run failed
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-hardware , python-hardware-doc
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[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-hardware-0.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
python3-hardware-0.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
python-hardware-doc-0.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
python-hardware-0.9-1.fc23.src.rpm
python-hardware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infos -> info,
info's, info s
python-hardware.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hardware-detect
python3-hardware.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infos -> info,
info's, info s
python-hardware-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python-hardware-doc/html/_static/jquery.js
python-hardware-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-hardware-doc/html/.buildinfo
python-hardware.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infos -> info,
info's, info s
python-hardware.src: W: strange-permission python-hardware.spec 0640L
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
python3-hardware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-babel
python3-netaddr
python3-pexpect
python-hardware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python2
python(abi)
python-babel
python-ipaddr
python-netaddr
python-pexpect
python-hardware-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
python3-hardware:
python3-hardware
python-hardware:
python-hardware
python-hardware-doc:
python-hardware-doc
Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/h/hardware/hardware-0.9.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
de708dd980e3a17c03a741b0ce218aa6cb254cb46e3ad4e1a9b11daf8d6707ef
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
de708dd980e3a17c03a741b0ce218aa6cb254cb46e3ad4e1a9b11daf8d6707ef
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 1192969
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
--
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