[Bug 1315912] Review Request: diffoscope - In-depth comparison of files, archives, and directories
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 10 19:35:39 UTC 2016
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315912
--- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande at gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Check did not completechecksum differs and there are problems
running diff. Please verify manually.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Script installs python code released under GPLv3+ :
GPL (v3 or later)
-----------------
diffoscope-51/bin/diffoscope
diffoscope-51/diffoscope/__init__.py
diffoscope-51/diffoscope/__main__.py
diffoscope-51/diffoscope/comparators/__init__.py
diffoscope-51/diffoscope/comparators/*.py
License tag should be modified to "BSD and GPLv3+"
- Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
- Please, check
Source checksums
----------------
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_51.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd
===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 70 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.5
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
attached diff).
See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: diffoscope-51-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
diffoscope-51-1.fc25.src.rpm
diffoscope.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff ->
diffidence
diffoscope.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debbindiff ->
diffidence
diffoscope.src: W: invalid-url Source0: diffoscope-51.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/srpm/diffoscope.spec 2016-03-10
19:15:46.706356273 +0100
+++ /home/sagitter/1315912-diffoscope/srpm-unpacked/diffoscope.spec
2016-03-09 14:10:10.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,9 +1,14 @@
Name: diffoscope
Version: 51
-Release: 2%{?dist}
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: In-depth comparison of files, archives, and directories
License: BSD
URL: https://diffoscope.org/
-Source0:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_%{version}.tar.xz
+#Source0:
https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/d/diffoscope/diffoscope-%%{version}.tar.gz
+
+# Latest versions missing from pypi
+# git clone https://anonscm.debian.org/git/reproducible/diffoscope.git
+# git archive --prefix diffoscope-51/ 51 | xz -9 > ../diffoscope-51.tar.xz
+Source0: diffoscope-%{version}.tar.xz
BuildArch: noarch
@@ -18,5 +23,4 @@
BuildRequires: /usr/bin/rst2man
Requires: python3-magic
-Requires: python3-tlsh
%description
@@ -60,7 +64,4 @@
%changelog
-* Thu Mar 10 2016 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at bupkis> - 51-2
-- Require python3-tlsh
-
* Wed Mar 9 2016 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at bupkis> - 51-1
- Update to v 51
Requires
--------
diffoscope (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3-magic
Provides
--------
diffoscope:
diffoscope
Source checksums
----------------
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/diffoscope/diffoscope_51.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ERROR
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
48aecda84fd621649dd457b6ebe574ee2cf08a6eb475bdbc16284de195ea90dd
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1315912
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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