Bug 1164078

Hi

Can you check this two points? I do not find others issues with your package:

[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /etc/twms
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/twms, /usr/share/licenses

Is this file necesary?

Rpmlint
-------
twms.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/twms/irs_nxt.jpg
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

Now the package owns /etc/twms. /usr/share/licenses shouldn't be owned by the package, as it doesn't create that directory.

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mayorga/twms.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mayorga/twms-0.05-2.fc20.src.rpm

Package Review
==============

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

Generic:
[OK]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[OK]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "*No copyright* WTFPL WTFPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/makerpm/1164078-twms/licensecheck.txt
[OK]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[OK]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[OK]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[OK]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[OK]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ -]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[OK]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[OK]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[OK]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[OK]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[OK]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
[OK]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[OK]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[OK]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[OK]: 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.
[OK]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[OK]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[OK]: Package installs properly.
[OK]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[OK]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[OK]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[OK]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[OK]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[OK]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[OK]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[OK]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[OK]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[OK]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[OK]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[OK]: Package is not relocatable.
[OK]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[OK]: 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:
[OK]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[OK]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[OK]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[OK]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[OK]: 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.
[OK]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[OK]: Package functions as described.
[OK]: Latest version is packaged.
[OK]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[OK]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[OK]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[OK]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[OK]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[OK]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[OK]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[OK]: Buildroot is not present
[OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[OK]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[OK]: SourceX is a working URL.
[OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[OK]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[OK]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: twms-0.05-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
          twms-0.05-2.fc20.src.rpm
twms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
twms.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint twms
twms.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend -> backed, back end, back-end
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
twms (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python
    config(twms)
    pyproj
    python(abi)
    python-imaging
    python-webpy

Provides
--------
twms:
    config(twms)
    twms

Source checksums
----------------
https://twms.googlecode.com/files/twms-0.05t.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8c9d9f76d95b339a4e4437611397b0874f934cbe702c215826ec850c6d1bab63
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c9d9f76d95b339a4e4437611397b0874f934cbe702c215826ec850c6d1bab63

You are using the new %%license macro, this is still noo oficial in packaging but it is not a bloqquer so package is aproved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: twms
Short Description: Tiny web map service
Upstream URL: https://code.google.com/p/twms/
Owners: mayorga
Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

twms-0.05-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/twms-0.05-2.fc21

twms-0.05-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/twms-0.05-2.fc20

twms-0.05-3.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/twms-0.05-3.el7

twms-0.05-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/twms-0.05-3.el6

twms-0.05-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.