[Bug 795883] Review Request: python-tgcaptcha2 - TurboGears captcha plugin
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 29 11:14:42 UTC 2012
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=795883
--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de> 2012-02-29 06:14:41 EST ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-tgcaptcha2-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) captcha -> catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captcha ->
catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captch ->
catch, capt ch, capt-ch
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint python-tgcaptcha2-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) captcha -> catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captcha ->
catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captch -> catch,
capt ch, capt-ch
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: file-size-mismatch TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz = 42640,
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/t/g/tgcaptcha2/TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz =
42629
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/795883/TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 9b5aedb6d811bf802d940eeb2e68aefb
MD5SUM upstream package : 0b85973197459e2ed530a093ed27afca
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Note: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig
import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
Issues:
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
See: None
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint python-tgcaptcha2-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) captcha -> catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captcha ->
catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captch ->
catch, capt ch, capt-ch
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint python-tgcaptcha2-0.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) captcha -> catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captcha ->
catchall
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US captch -> catch,
capt ch, capt-ch
python-tgcaptcha2.src: W: file-size-mismatch TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz = 42640,
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/t/g/tgcaptcha2/TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz =
42629
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/mrunge/review/795883/TGCaptcha2-0.2.0.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 9b5aedb6d811bf802d940eeb2e68aefb
MD5SUM upstream package : 0b85973197459e2ed530a093ed27afca
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
Are you going to package this also for el5? If not, you should remove
buildroot-definition, the first line (python-sitelib definition), then removing
of %{buildroot} is not necessary, either. You should remove the
%{clean}-section.
Ah, file-permissions also are not necessary, if not supporting el5.
Then, it seems file included in srpm and gotten from source0 mismatch. Please
rebuild a newer srpm.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list