Spec URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-bashate.spec SRPM URL: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-bashate-0.3.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: It is a pep8 equivalent for bash scripts. This program attempts to be an automated style checker for bash scripts to fill the same part of code review that pep8 does in most OpenStack projects. Fedora Account System Username: chandankumar Successful Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10676639
We recently changed Python guidelines for F22+ and EPEL7. Please look again https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python and change the spec file Add the python3 support as well as we have python3 default in Fedora 23. Fix rpmlint warning as well. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_files 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1252657-python-bashate/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python- bashate-doc [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]: 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: python-bashate-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-bashate-doc-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-bashate-0.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm python-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- python-bashate-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-bashate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 python(abi) python-babel python-pbr python-setuptools Provides -------- python-bashate-doc: python-bashate-doc python-bashate: python-bashate Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bashate/bashate-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419
chandankumar's scratch build of python-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11274718
Hello parag, Thanks for the review, Here is the updated SPEC : https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-bashate.spec SRPM: https://chandankumar.fedorapeople.org/python-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm Thanks, Chandan Kumar
Same here also I don't think you need to make bashate.py executable, instead remove shebang, as there is already /usr/bin/bashate wrapper script it will run bashate.py without problem. You can remove it in end of %prep section as sed -i -e '/^#!\//, 1d' bashate/bashate.py Otherwise looks good. APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-bashate Short Description: A pep8 equivalent for bash scripts Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/bashate Owners: chandankumar apevec Branches: f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Looks good to me.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-bashate See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tenobreg/upstream/trove/1252657-python- bashate/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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. [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 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. [-]: 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-bashate , python3-bashate , python-bashate-doc [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: python2-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python3-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-bashate-doc-0.3.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm python-bashate-0.3.1-2.fc22.src.rpm python2-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python-bashate-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-bashate python2-bashate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python-babel python-pbr python-setuptools python3-bashate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-babel python3-pbr python3-setuptools Provides -------- python-bashate-doc: python-bashate-doc python2-bashate: python-bashate python2-bashate python3-bashate: python3-bashate Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/b/bashate/bashate-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2398140c35fcb03249640708aa7de652f9cbe680ad6cb09074a89255f6a30419 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1252657 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
This should have been closed as already built on requested branches.