Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 7 files. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Dist tag is present. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define _version 0.600.3 %define _release 2 %define with_rhel6_defaults 0 %define with_selinux 1 %define with_sbin_compat 0 %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(python -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} %define _extra_release %{?dist:%{dist}}%{!?dist:%{?extra_release:%{extra_release}}} %define appname virtinst %define with_egg 1 %define with_egg 0 %define _rhel6_defaults --rhel6defaults [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-virtinst-0.600.3-2.fc19.noarch.rpm python-virtinst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty python-virtinst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US virt -> dirt, girt, vi rt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python-virtinst (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python libselinux-python libvirt-python libxml2-python python(abi) python-urlgrabber urlgrabber Provides -------- python-virtinst: python-virtinst virt-clone virt-convert virt-image virt-install MD5-sum check ------------- http://virt-manager.org/download/sources/virtinst/virtinst-0.600.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e41efad3e3c798129af0cec92c1abd6c7e209b5dd4d311acdef0fc1a2daf5006 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e41efad3e3c798129af0cec92c1abd6c7e209b5dd4d311acdef0fc1a2daf5006 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (736af0d) last change: 2013-01-28 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn python-virtinst -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires