https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134742
--- Comment #6 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart(a)redhat.com> ---
Summary: Looks good; approved. (Jamie addressed the issues from comment
#4.)
Rest of human review
--------------------
===== 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.
* ASL 2.0
[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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files
have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/kashyap/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-requests-mock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
- Standard directories, this is fine.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
* Standard directories, so this is fine
[-]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 6 files.
* No -doc subpackage is necessary
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
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.
egg-info for the package:
----
$ tree
./rpms-unpacked/python3-requests-mock-0.5.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/requests_mock-0.5.1-py3.4.egg-info/
./rpms-unpacked/python3-requests-mock-0.5.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/requests_mock-0.5.1-py3.4.egg-info/
├── dependency_links.txt
├── not-zip-safe
├── PKG-INFO
├── requires.txt
├── SOURCES.txt
└── top_level.txt
----
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: 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
-requests-mock
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
* noarch package
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Rpmlint is happy too:
$ rpmlint python-requests-mock.spec
../SRPMS/python-requests-mock-0.5.1-2.fc20.src.rpm
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component