https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

Brian Stinson bstinson@ksu.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bstinson@ksu.edu

--- Comment #1 from Brian Stinson bstinson@ksu.edu ---

Hi Sergio,

Here is an unofficial review: rpmlint warnings can be safely ignored (they're false-positives in the spellchecker) Everything else looks good to me.

--Brian

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. [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". 22 files have unknown license. * ^-- MIT license matches the contents of LICENSE [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 * ^-- this message is a false-positive in rawhide [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.4 * ^-- this message is a false-positive in rawhide [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 files. * ^-- this is small enough to not require a subpackage [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). * ^-- the rpmlint errors are spellcheck false-postives [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 %doc. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-emcee [?]: Package functions as described. * ^-- NOTE: modules import cleanly [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: python-emcee-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-emcee-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm python-emcee-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm python-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) affine -> caffeine, fine python-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine python3-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) affine -> caffeine, fine python3-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine python-emcee.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) affine -> caffeine, fine python-emcee.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-emcee python3-emcee python-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) affine -> caffeine, fine python-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine python3-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) affine -> caffeine, fine python3-emcee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US affine -> caffeine, fine 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- python-emcee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi)

python3-emcee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-numpy

Provides -------- python-emcee: python-emcee

python3-emcee: python3-emcee

Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/e/emcee/emcee-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5ce1039a3d78fb9e7d53fcd768517585c5998193743bfcfaac407927d375ca63 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ce1039a3d78fb9e7d53fcd768517585c5998193743bfcfaac407927d375ca63

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1109751 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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik@saltstack.com Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

--- Comment #4 from Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com --- Yes, only in f20+ for the moment

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

--- Comment #5 from Erik Johnson erik@saltstack.com --- Great, thanks.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109751

Sergio Pascual sergio.pasra@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2014-09-05 09:14:45