[Bug 1735723] New: Review Request: python-freecell_solver - cffi-based bindings for libfreecell-solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735723
Bug ID: 1735723 Summary: Review Request: python-freecell_solver - cffi-based bindings for libfreecell-solver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: shlomif@shlomifish.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://www.shlomifish.org/Files/files/code/python-freecell_solver.spec SRPM URL: https://www.shlomifish.org/Files/files/arcs/python-freecell_solver-0.2.3-1.f... Description: Required by the test suite of freecell-solver v5.12.0 Fedora Account System Username: shlomif
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735723
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/%%7Bpypi_name%7D/%%7Bpypi_n...
→
Source0: %{pypi_source}
Package approved.
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-freecell_solver/review-python- freecell_solver/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. [-]: 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. Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification. [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 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: 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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-freecell_solver [?]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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-freecell_solver-0.2.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-freecell_solver-doc-0.2.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-freecell_solver-0.2.3-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-freecell_solver.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Freecell -> Free cell, Free-cell, Freelance python3-freecell_solver.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cffi -> coffin python-freecell_solver-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) freecell -> free cell, free-cell, freelance python-freecell_solver-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C freecell_solver documentation python-freecell_solver-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US freecell -> free cell, free-cell, freelance python-freecell_solver.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Freecell -> Free cell, Free-cell, Freelance python-freecell_solver.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cffi -> coffin 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735723
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-freecell_solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735723
Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED CC| |mail@fabian-affolter.ch Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-05-19 10:52:26
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com