[Bug 800899] Review Request: spacewalk-pylint - Pylint configuration for spacewalk python packages

Wed May 16 15:00:55 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=800899

Tomas Radej <tradej at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Tomas Radej <tradej at redhat.com> 2012-05-16 11:00:53 EDT ---

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.
[x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
     Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST No %config files under /usr.
[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.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[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.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Issues:
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>>>> GPLv2+ is specified, GPLv2 found on project's website (see
>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/browser/LICENSE )

[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
     Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>>>> Please, stick to using only one of these macros throughout the spec file

Notes
[!]: 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
>>>> Since the package is intended for RHEL5 too, ignore these

[!]: 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.
>>>> Would be nice to have

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
          spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm:
    /bin/sh  
    config(spacewalk-pylint) = 0.3-1.fc18
    pylint  

Provides
--------
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm:
    config(spacewalk-pylint) = 0.3-1.fc18
    spacewalk-pylint = 0.3-1.fc18

MD5-sum check
-------------
/home/tradej/reviews/800899/spacewalk-pylint-0.3.tar.gz :
  MD5SUM this package     : 6449170b4bf47b1634cc1e95aa89da72
  MD5SUM upstream package : 4169ba73e6debe900cfa2882d56f0364
However, diff -r shows no differences

Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git
External plugins:

*** NOT APPROVED ***

-- 
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.