Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Python IVI is a Python-based interpretation of the Interchangeable Virtual Instrument standard. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter This package is for Fedora, EPEL6, EPEL7
This is an informal review. rpmlint python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc23.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Some general initial comments: The BuildRequires should have one package per line. The build and install steps should make use of the %py2_build and %py2_install commands (and similar for python3). The python3 package doesn't include the python_provide info.
Hi Stuart, (In reply to Stuart Campbell from comment #1) > This is an informal review. > > rpmlint python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc23.src.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > Some general initial comments: > > The BuildRequires should have one package per line. This is not mandatory. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 > > The build and install steps should make use of the %py2_build and > %py2_install commands (and similar for python3). Those macros are not available yet on EPEL6. Using expanded form is not forbidden. > > The python3 package doesn't include the python_provide info. The python3 subpackage must provide python3-example. However, as the naming guidelines mandate that the python3 subpackage be named python3-example, this will happen automatically. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Provides
- From setup.py and COPYING files, I think the package is under MIT. However, the License fields states BSD. Can you correct this? - Python2 version should be in its own subpackage. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file. - I think that for consistency with the guidelines, you should use python_provide for the python3 subpackage. 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1294275 -python-ivi/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.5 [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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. [X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Python2 version should be in its own subpackage. [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 python3-ivi , python-ivi-doc [?]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python3-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ivi-doc-0.14.9-1.fc24.noarch.rpm python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc24.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python-ivi-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-ivi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): numpy python(abi) python3-ivi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-numpy Provides -------- python-ivi-doc: python-ivi-doc python-ivi: python-ivi python-ivi(x86-64) python3-ivi: python3-ivi Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/python-ivi/python-ivi/archive/v0.14.9.tar.gz#/python-ivi-0.14.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1b0c4fffb34387ae86f1fabb5f0b1873c1a34291131dfcdaf2c5b683075752b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1b0c4fffb34387ae86f1fabb5f0b1873c1a34291131dfcdaf2c5b683075752b 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 1294275 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
(In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #3) > - From setup.py and COPYING files, I think the package is under MIT. > However, the License fields states BSD. Can you correct this? > - Python2 version should be in its own subpackage. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file. It is thanks to %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pname}}. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi-0.14.9-2.fc23.src.rpm
> It is thanks to %{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pname}} python_provide is just meant to add `Provide: python-ivi` to the subpackage for the default python implementation (python2 for now). If you look at the provides, you see that there is no mention of python2-ivi. If the python2 version were in its own subpackage, the provides would look that this: python2-ivi: python2-ivi python-ivi python2-ivi(x86-64) The other issues are corrected.
Okay. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/python-ivi/python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc23.src.rpm
Looks good! Approved.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-ivi
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-745088385f
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1f2bdb73c8
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-745088385f
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-916a2ecad2
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1f2bdb73c8
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c1f9e10e6f
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-ivi-0.14.9-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.