https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958059 --- Comment #15 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [!]: 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. %doc line is missing. Please add it in %files section. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/958059-yum-axelget/licensecheck.txt axelget's license is imprecise: axelget.py file is licensed with a GPLv2+, LICENSE file reports a GPLv3. What's right one ? Please, contact the upstream. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python2.7, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages These directories (/usr/lib/python2.7/*) are owned by python-libs package. There is just a file that installation puts in /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ directory, you must indicate only which. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/yum-plugins(yum) Same here: /usr/lib/yum-plugins directory is owned by 'yum' package. You must indicate just which file/files must be installed inside. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Changelog is not updated. [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 [-]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: %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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: 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: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). "If you wish to use a single spec file to build for multiple distributions, you can use the %{?dist} tag in the Release field. Please refer to the Packaging:DistTag documentation for the details on the appropriate way to do this." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Na... [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. See above. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. The source archive just contain a pre-built python file; nothing is compiled, but only installed. You need to clarify this issue in devel or packaging mailing lists given that, in most times, pre-built files couldn't be permitted for the packaging. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-bu... [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")} python_sitelib definition is not necessary. Why do you use it ? [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc21.noarch.rpm yum-axelget-0.2-1.20130621svn12.fc21.src.rpm yum-axelget.noarch: W: no-documentation yum-axelget.src:37: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/yum-plugins/ yum-axelget.src: W: invalid-url Source0: yum-axelget-0.2.20130621svn12.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint yum-axelget yum-axelget.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- yum-axelget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): axel config(yum-axelget) yum yum-plugin-fastestmirror Provides -------- yum-axelget: config(yum-axelget) yum-axelget Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 958059 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching someone on the CC list of the bug.