https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503915
Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mhroncok(a)redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #32 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
Note: Unversionned Python dependency found.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Dependencies
Note: "%if 0%{?rhel} <= 7" is true on Fedora.
- Missing requirement on python3dist(six) (upstream says it needs it).
- Incoherent version in changelog, see rpmlint output bellow.
- Wrong (unneeded) shebangs, see rpmlint output bellow.
- Packaged .gitignore, see rpmlint output bellow.
===== 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. (python-dateutil, six
missing)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 276480 bytes in 5 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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
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.
[?]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: roca-detect-1.2.12-1.fc30.noarch.rpm
roca-detect-1.2.12-1.fc30.src.rpm
roca-detect.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.1-8
['1.2.12-1.fc30', '1.2.12-1']
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert01.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert02.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert03.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert04.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert05.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert06.pem
roca-detect.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_fingerprint.py /usr/bin/env
python
roca-detect.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_fingerprint.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_tls.py /usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_tls.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/roca-detect/docs/.gitignore
roca-detect.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/roca-detect/docs/.gitignore
roca-detect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roca-detect
roca-detect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roca-detect-tls
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
roca-detect.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.1-8
['1.2.12-1.fc30', '1.2.12-1']
roca-detect.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://crocs.fi.muni.cz/public/papers/rsa_ccs17 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name
or service not known>
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert01.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert02.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert03.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert04.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert05.pem
roca-detect.noarch: W: pem-certificate
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/data/cert06.pem
roca-detect.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_fingerprint.py /usr/bin/env
python
roca-detect.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_fingerprint.py 644
/usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_tls.py /usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/roca/tests/test_tls.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
roca-detect.noarch: E: version-control-internal-file
/usr/share/doc/roca-detect/docs/.gitignore
roca-detect.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/roca-detect/docs/.gitignore
roca-detect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roca-detect
roca-detect.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary roca-detect-tls
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 10 warnings.
Requires
--------
roca-detect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python-dateutil
python3-cryptography
python3-future
python3-pgpdump
Provides
--------
roca-detect:
python3.7dist(roca-detect)
python3dist(roca-detect)
roca-detect
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/crocs-muni/roca/archive/v1.2.12.tar.gz#/roca-detect-1....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
698987a3a260bf8eabf17767f0db6952bce42dff90ddbc3974e6248957fac3e7
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
698987a3a260bf8eabf17767f0db6952bce42dff90ddbc3974e6248957fac3e7
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (3899f24) last change: 2018-09-06
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1503915 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, BATCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, EPEL7, EPEL6
--
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