Spec URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna-3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: python-bna is a Python library of Battle.net Authenticator routines, this package also contains a command-line Battle.net authenticator. Fedora Account System Username: cicku
I have some *informal* review comments, - %{__python} is deprecated, please use %{__python2} (see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros) - Upstream releases don't include a separate LICENSE file. Can you please contact upstream about fixing this?
I have some more *informal* review comments, $ rpmlint python-bna-3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm ... python-bna.src: E: description-line-too-long C python-bna is a Python library of Battle.net Authenticator routines, this package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Please fix the line-lengths in the %description section.
(In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #1) > I have some *informal* review comments, > > - %{__python} is deprecated, please use %{__python2} (see: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros) Yep, thanks. I just got it from the list. > - Upstream releases don't include a separate LICENSE file. Can you please > contact upstream about fixing this? Ah, they have added a LICENSE file on github, I will check again(maybe I forgot to add it as %doc, or maybe caused by no such file, will check when possible.) Thanks!
Woh, upstream fixed it and re upload a new one. Spec URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna-3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
$ rpmlint python-bna-3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm ... python-bna.src: E: description-line-too-long ... 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Can you please fix this? You can use the following text, %description %{name} is a Python library of Battle.net Authenticator routines, this package also contains a command-line Battle.net authenticator. ... With this fix done, the package is good to go in.
It's weird because mine is nothing more/less than 79 chars. Anyway, fixed in the last URL(I don't want to bump release this time ;) ) Spec URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/python-bna-3.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
Yes, I found it weird too :-) Maybe the substitution of "%{name}" in %description is making the line length go over the limit?
(In reply to Dhiru Kholia from comment #7) > Yes, I found it weird too :-) > > Maybe the substitution of "%{name}" in %description is making the line > length go over the limit? I think RPM will convert the macros to plain text before setup. Anyway, I'll keep this in my mind from now on. Thanks!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed APPROVED - You should tell upstream that they should add licenses headers to all of their source files. - I would also suggest building for python3 as well. ===== 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/1001028-python- bna/licensecheck.txt [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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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). [ ]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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]: 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-bna-3.2-2.fc19.noarch.rpm python-bna-3.2-2.fc19.src.rpm python-bna.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authenticator -> authentication, authenticate, authentic python-bna.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bna python-bna.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authenticator -> authentication, authenticate, authentic 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-bna python-bna.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authenticator -> authentication, authenticate, authentic python-bna.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bna 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-bna (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) Provides -------- python-bna: python-bna Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-bna/python-bna-3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5bd90a9bcfc3f4aa766e20460456afcd4a8a8760a0f0f264c480ffcc38ed5c03 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5bd90a9bcfc3f4aa766e20460456afcd4a8a8760a0f0f264c480ffcc38ed5c03
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-bna Short Description: Battle.net Authenticator routines in Python Owners: cicku Branches: f20 f19
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-bna-3.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bna-3.2-2.fc20
python-bna-3.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-bna-3.2-2.fc19
python-bna-3.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-bna-3.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
python-bna-3.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.