https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719633 Tomas Orsava <torsava(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |torsava(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Tomas Orsava <torsava(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - I personally consider it confusing that the version-release continues from the python-rpm-macros in RHEL, giving the casual observer the idea that the two packages are from the same SRPM/source/RHEL. But this is only a personal opinion, not a blocking issue. ===== 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, /usr/lib/rpm [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. -> There is conflict with the old python-rpm-macros components in EPEL, but they are being obsoleted by this package [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: 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. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: 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: python3-other-rpm-macros-3-25.fc31.noarch.rpm python-epel-rpm-macros-3-25.fc31.src.rpm python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation python-epel-rpm-macros.src: W: no-url-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python3-other-rpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-other-rpm-macros (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-other-rpm-macros: python3-other-rpm-macros Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1719633 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719633 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |torsava(a)redhat.com --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13178 "The Bugzilla bug provided is not assigned to anyone" -- 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