Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd-0.1.1-1.oj35.src.rpm Description: This Inkscape extension allows you to load Photoshop PSD files. Fedora Account System Username: moceap
Don't add license text, unless it was provided by upstream. Open a bug upstream to include the license text instead (maybe use __init__.py as the license file temporarily). Running fedora-review now, I'll add more comments later.
No need to have both %doc LICENSE and %license LICENSE. The latter is enough. Resulting binary does not have a dependency on python.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > Resulting binary does not have a dependency on python. Resulting binary [package] does not have a dependency on python. [but it is needed].
Spec URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd.spec SRPM URL: http://ojuba.org/test/inkscape-psd-0.1.1-1.oj35.src.rpm ------ - Contacted to upstream - Remove un-needed %%doc - Add python as a require - New way to documentation of LICENSE ------ All fixed :)
[x] OK [-] not applicable Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel I *think* this not necessary here. Only a file is copied, and not to any python specific directory. ===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp /review-inkscape-psd/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 [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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. [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 %license. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Rpmlint ------- Checking: inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc23.noarch.rpm inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc23.src.rpm inkscape-psd.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- inkscape-psd.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- inkscape-psd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): inkscape python Provides -------- inkscape-psd: inkscape-psd Looks good. Package is APPROVED.
Thank you .. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: inkscape-psd Short Description: Inkscape PSD Importer Owners: moceap Branches: f21 f22
Git done (by process-git-requests).
inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc22
inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc21
inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
inkscape-psd-0.1.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.