https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481775 --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21245207 -- 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=1481775 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |kevin(a)scrye.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |kevin(a)scrye.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; --- I'll review this. Look for a full review in the next few days... -- 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=1481775 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; --- 1. There's 2 jar files in the tests directory that are provided from the upstream source. These should be removed before the build and any tests that need them disabled. 2. Should javadoc be made with this package? It's optional, but you might want to see if it's worthwhile. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 3. IMHO The python-jep package should be python2-jep (if you are making the python2 version, which it looks like you are not?) 4. The /usr/bin/jep file should be in both python2 and python3 subpackages, or only the python3 one if you are only shipping that version. Right now someone could install python3-jep and have no bin to run. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "zlib/libpng". 137 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kevin/1481775 -python-jep/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used 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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-jep , python-jep-debugsource [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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. Java: [ ]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: python-jep subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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: python-jep-3.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python3-jep-3.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-jep-debugsource-3.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm python-jep-3.7.0-1.fc28.src.rpm python-jep.x86_64: E: no-binary python-jep.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-jep.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jep python3-jep.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/python3-jep/README.rst python3/README.rst python3-jep.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python3-jep/LICENSE python-jep-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-jep-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/python-jep-3.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64/python3/src/jep/python/jep_object.c python-jep.src:72: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/jvm/java python-jep.src:85: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/jvm/java python-jep.src:98: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/jvm/java 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 91 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python-jep.x86_64: E: no-binary python-jep.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-jep.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jep python3-jep.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/python3-jep/README.rst python3/README.rst python3-jep.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/python3-jep/LICENSE python-jep-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-jep-debugsource.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/python-jep-3.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64/python3/src/jep/python/jep_object.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 91 warnings. Requires -------- python-jep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java-headless python3-jep python3-jep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libjvm.so()(64bit) libjvm.so(SUNWprivate_1.1)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.6m.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-jep-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python-jep: python-jep python-jep(x86-64) python3-jep: python3-jep python3-jep(x86-64) python3.6dist(jep) python3dist(jep) python-jep-debugsource: python-jep-debugsource python-jep-debugsource(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-jep: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/jep/jep.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-jep: /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/jep/libjep.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ninia/jep/archive/v3.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2f57b63b025b0df1fb3a27ee94e7e98b2223a64454d579507e0312a4da7f252 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2f57b63b025b0df1fb3a27ee94e7e98b2223a64454d579507e0312a4da7f252 Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./python-jep-3.7.0/python3/tests/lib/sqlitejdbc-v056.jar ./python-jep-3.7.0/python3/tests/lib/fakenetty.jar Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1481775 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481775 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; --- Sorry for my delay here. Everything looks good. This package is APPROVED. -- 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=1481775 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-jep-3.7.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ea6bd49b49 -- 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=1481775 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-jep-3.7.0-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b728aefab0 -- 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=1481775 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-jep-3.7.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ea6bd49b49 -- 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=1481775 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-jep-3.7.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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