Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-geoip-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Provides GeoIP functionality for Python Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor Rawhide Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11297756
williamjmorenor's scratch build of python-geoip-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11297747
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1268099-python- geoip/licensecheck.txt The setup.py file says the software is under the BSD license and so says licensecheck. However, your spec file states MIT. Can you please correct this? [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-pytest, python3-path, python3-virtualenv, python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs, python3-feedparser, python3-augeas, langtable-python3, python3-pytest-cov, python3-setuptools, python3-ntplib, python3-autopep8) Maybe use something a little more precise than %{python3_sitelib}/*. Maybe %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/geoip* and %{python3_sitelib}/geoip* [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. You have an empty entry with just a dash. You should also add the version of the software in the first line of the changelog. [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]: 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. [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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-geoip , python3-geoip [?]: 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. [?]: 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: python2-geoip-1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-geoip-1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-geoip-1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm python2-geoip.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog python3-geoip.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog python-geoip.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-geoip.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog python2-geoip.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-geoip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-geoip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-geoip: python3-geoip python2-geoip: python-geoip python-geoip(x86-64) python2-geoip Source checksums ---------------- http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/p/python-geoip/python-geoip-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7b11dab42bffba56943b3199e3441f41cea145244d215844ecb6de3d5fb2df5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7b11dab42bffba56943b3199e3441f41cea145244d215844ecb6de3d5fb2df5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1268099 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Maybe you should change the name of this package. It doesn't conflict with python-GeoIP since the case is different, but it may be confusing. Maybe the ugly python-python-geoip?
I think than this name do not follow the naming guidelines.
> I think than this name do not follow the naming guidelines. I don't know. Maybe you should take the issue to the packaging list to have more opinions on this.
Any progress on this review?
Closing this due to no activity. If you want to continue the packaging, please re-open.