Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval.spec SRPM URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval-1.5.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Relval can perform various tasks related to Fedora QA by interacting with the Fedora wiki. It lets you: * Create wiki pages for Fedora release validation test events * Generate statistics on release validation testing * Report release validation test results using a console interface Fedora Account System Username: adamwill
latest spec now at same URL, latest SRPM is https://www.happyassassin.net/wikitcms/repo/21/SRPMS/relval-1.8.5-1.fc21.src.rpm . versions prior to 1.8.5 have serious security issues in the HTML generator subcommands and should not be used for those purposes.
latest spec now at same URL, latest SRPM is https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval-1.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm . Note relval depends on python-wikitcms - review request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173797 - which in turn depends on fedfind - review request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194428 .
Just a reminder - please update this review with the python-wikitcms review.
python-wikitcms is now approved, so updating this: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval-1.11.5-1.fc23.src.rpm https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval.spec it also needs the %license tweak, I'll do that on import.
adamwill's scratch build of relval-1.11.6-1.fc23.src.rpm for epel7 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11522983
Ping? Pete? https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval-1.11.6-1.fc23.src.rpm https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/relval/relval.spec
Pong! Notes on the top: - %license is not used - you're doing this on import still. - relval/cli.py is executable, there's no need for that. Not a big problem Otherwise, a straightforward setuptools package, no complaints. Here's the meat: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [+] = Manual review pass [!] = Manual review fail Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /srv/projects/fedpkg/1173798-relval/licensecheck.txt [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required Reviewer Note: meh. You're probably thinking EPEL. [+]: 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 51200 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]: 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]: 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 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: relval-1.11.6-1.fc23.noarch.rpm relval-1.11.6-1.fc23.src.rpm relval.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/relval/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env relval.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary relval 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- relval.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/relval/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env relval.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary relval 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- relval (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-markupsafe python-setuptools python-wikitcms Provides -------- relval: relval Source checksums ---------------- https://www.happyassassin.net/relval/releases/relval-1.11.6.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 43c72708c7fd0f49c842b1a64120f340e439ceb163fb8bc22144bc57d6e96b86 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 43c72708c7fd0f49c842b1a64120f340e439ceb163fb8bc22144bc57d6e96b86 ========================================================= Package is APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/relval
I'm fixing %license on import now. Thanks. The error about cli.py is actually the opposite - it's telling you that it's got a hashbang but isn't marked as executable. This is kinda an artefact of how my source is laid out, I could fiddle with it upstream, but like you say it's not really a big deal.
relval-1.11.6-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-54d7915765
relval-1.11.6-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1c3a79a72d
relval-1.11.6-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update relval' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-54d7915765
relval-1.11.6-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update relval' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1c3a79a72d
relval-1.11.6-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update relval' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-09db862e14
csutherl's scratch build of fedora-tomcat-epel?#9661f8da0d7e82b63ef65ebe467e0eb103ae624f for el6-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-tomcat-epel?#9661f8da0d7e82b63ef65ebe467e0eb103ae624f failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11823023
relval-1.11.6-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
relval-1.11.6-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
relval-1.11.6-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.