[Bug 1186755] Review Request: dap2rpm - Tool for generating RPM specfiles for DevAssistant DAP packages
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jan 28 14:41:59 UTC 2015
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186755
Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain at gmail.com> ---
Fix issue with fullstops when import package.
looks like fedora-review broken in rawhide, but I've checked all things.
APPROVED.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- remove "." in all Summary tags
===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/brain/1186755-dap2rpm/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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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
[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]: 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
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[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-
dap2rpm , python3-dap2rpm
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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]: 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: dap2rpm-0.1.7-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
python-dap2rpm-0.1.7-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
python3-dap2rpm-0.1.7-2.fc22.noarch.rpm
dap2rpm-0.1.7-2.fc22.src.rpm
dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec files,
spec-files, specifiable
dap2rpm.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Tool for generating RPM specfiles
for DevAssistant DAP packages.
dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles -> spec
files, spec-files, specifiable
dap2rpm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dap2rpm
python-dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec
files, spec-files, specifiable
python-dap2rpm.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python 2 library for
generating RPM specfiles for DevAssistant DAP packages.
python-dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles ->
spec files, spec-files, specifiable
python3-dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec
files, spec-files, specifiable
python3-dap2rpm.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python 3 library for
generating RPM specfiles for DevAssistant DAP packages.
python3-dap2rpm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles ->
spec files, spec-files, specifiable
dap2rpm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) specfiles -> spec files,
spec-files, specifiable
dap2rpm.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Tool for generating RPM specfiles for
DevAssistant DAP packages.
dap2rpm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US specfiles -> spec files,
spec-files, specifiable
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
python-dap2rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
PyYAML
python(abi)
python-jinja2
python-requests
rpmdevtools
python3-dap2rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-PyYAML
python3-jinja2
python3-requests
rpmdevtools
dap2rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python3-dap2rpm
rpmdevtools
Provides
--------
python-dap2rpm:
python-dap2rpm
python3-dap2rpm:
python3-dap2rpm
dap2rpm:
dap2rpm
Source checksums
----------------
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/dap2rpm/dap2rpm-0.1.7.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d39b29d851eb2719d81818bf0d2e5974df2387615bde7f7de505d43a9915f139
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d39b29d851eb2719d81818bf0d2e5974df2387615bde7f7de505d43a9915f139
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1186755
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