Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mrunge@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mrunge@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

--- Comment #3 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com --- F16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4703293

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #647796|0 |1 is obsolete| |

--- Comment #5 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com --- Created attachment 647820 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=647820&action=edit fedora-review logfile

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

--- Comment #7 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com --- sochotni was kind enough to help me with this problem. He ran the spec through fedora-review master and it went fine.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

--- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============

Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n python3-uinput [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mrunge/review/877969 -python-uinput/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic: [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-uinput-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-uinput-0.9-1.fc19.src.rpm python-uinput-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm python-uinput.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python python-uinput.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace python-uinput.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-uinput.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_libsuinput.so 0775L python-uinput.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python python-uinput.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-uinput python-uinput-debuginfo python-uinput.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Pythonic -> Python python-uinput.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace python-uinput.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-uinput.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/_libsuinput.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- python-uinput-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libudev.so.1()(64bit) libudev.so.1(LIBUDEV_183)(64bit) python(abi) = 2.7 rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-uinput-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- python-uinput-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm:

python-uinput = 0.9-1.fc19 python-uinput(x86-64) = 0.9-1.fc19

python-uinput-debuginfo-0.9-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm:

python-uinput-debuginfo = 0.9-1.fc19 python-uinput-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.9-1.fc19

MD5-sum check ------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-uinput/python-uinput-0.9.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2cd5ea90bf83bc3ce56e3d2897de9133080e940f1396551d21305aac43611295 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2cd5ea90bf83bc3ce56e3d2897de9133080e940f1396551d21305aac43611295

Issues: - no docs; you must include COPYING, and I'd also include README; please take care also to include the license for py3 version, there are also examples and a NEWS file. It's up to you, if you want to distribute both. - you also should correct exec perms for _libsuinput.so

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

--- Comment #11 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com --- An updated package: Added the docs and examples, did not fix the lib permissions.

Spec URL: http://fabiand.fedorapeople.org/python-uinput/2/python-uinput.spec SRPM URL: http://fabiand.fedorapeople.org/python-uinput/2/python-uinput-0.9-2.fc16.src...

F16 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4708280 F17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4708285 F18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4708288 F19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4708296 rawhide http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4708291

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

Matthias Runge mrunge@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags|fedora_requires_release_not | |e+ | Flags| |fedora-review+

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

Fabian Deutsch fabian.deutsch@gmx.de changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabian.deutsch@gmx.de Flags| |fedora-cvs+

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877969

--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).