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 - Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 225280 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [!]: Uses parallel make. [ ]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Dist tag is present. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rpmlint-1.4-11.fc19.noarch.rpm rpmlint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary el5-rpmlint rpmlint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpmdiff rpmlint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary el4-rpmlint 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- rpmlint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/groff /usr/bin/python binutils bzip2 config(rpmlint) cpio desktop-file-utils gzip python python-enchant python-magic rpm-python xz Provides -------- rpmlint: config(rpmlint) rpmlint MD5-sum check ------------- http://rpmlint.zarb.org/download/rpmlint-1.4.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af4e4e8304c7209e95b9100f7592aca0d713b542dcb6c0629395655716a287f6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af4e4e8304c7209e95b9100f7592aca0d713b542dcb6c0629395655716a287f6 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 rpmlint -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires