Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/twms.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/twms-0.05-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: tWMS is a tiny WMS server written in Python and using tiles as a backend storage. Fedora Account System Username: mayorga
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.