Spec URL: http://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-pyprintr.spec SRPM URL: http://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-pyprintr-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: pyprintr is a module that allows to emulate the print_r() function of PHP by printing the objects properties of a class instance and its internal structure. Fedora Account System Username: mayorga rpmlint output: [makerpm@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint python-pyprintr.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint python-pyprintr-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
While the name python-pyprintr seems to be legitimate, may I suggest python-printr instead? This matches the schema "python-%{module_name}". Please tell the author and correct rpmlint's finding on the shebang: "#! -*- coding: utf-8 -*-" should be "# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-" -- Mind the exclamation mark! Make the package noarch! That's a must. 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1091483-python-pyprintr/licensecheck.txt [-]: %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. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 51200 bytes in 3 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. [!]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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]: Package functions as described. [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. [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]: 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]: 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-pyprintr-1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm python-pyprintr-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: no-binary python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/printr/__init__.py -*- python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/printr/__init__.py 0644L -*- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint python-pyprintr python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: no-binary python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/printr/__init__.py -*- python-pyprintr.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/printr/__init__.py 0644L -*- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- python-pyprintr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-pyprintr: python-pyprintr python-pyprintr(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/pyprintr/pyprintr-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05cc6089c50431f0d110ffe7d8338299be87fc29d0b24b558ef4b400c18b63ff CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05cc6089c50431f0d110ffe7d8338299be87fc29d0b24b558ef4b400c18b63ff Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1091483 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
(In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #1) > While the name python-pyprintr seems to be legitimate, may I suggest > python-printr instead? This matches the schema "python-%{module_name}". There's actually another module called 'printr' in PyPI. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/printr/1.0.4 > Please tell the author and correct rpmlint's finding on the shebang: > > "#! -*- coding: utf-8 -*-" should be "# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-" -- Mind the > exclamation mark! Done. > Make the package noarch! That's a must. Done. Spec URL: http://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-pyprintr.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/python-pyprintr-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-pyprintr Short Description: Module that allows to emulate the print_r() PHP function Upstream URL: http://www.python-printr.org/ Owners: mayorga Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-pyprintr-1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyprintr-1.0-2.fc20
python-pyprintr-1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
python-pyprintr-1.0-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-pyprintr-1.0-3.el6
python-pyprintr-1.0-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
python-pyprintr-1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.