Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/resultsdb.spec SRPM URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc23.src.rpm Description: Results store for automated tasks FAS: mkrizek
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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 10240 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: 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. [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: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [!]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.noarch.rpm resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.src.rpm resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 fedmsg python(abi) python-alembic python-flask python-flask-login python-flask-restful python-flask-sqlalchemy python-flask-wtf python-iso8601 python-six python-sqlalchemy python-wtforms Provides -------- resultsdb: resultsdb Source checksums ---------------- https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f Comments -------- - Requirements in requirements.txt contains: package == version. Shouldn't be it like >= or it's working only with one version? Cause in spec are all Requires with >= - Missing parameters for preventing timestamps in %install section - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed in /etc/* without .example suffix
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1) > - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed > in /etc/* without .example suffix And executable files shouldn't be in /etc, nor in /usr/share/*. Also .pyc, .pyo. shouldn't be in /usr/share/* (you will have to workaround python autocompile directories).
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #1) > 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have > unknown license. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: 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. > [x]: 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. > [x]: 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 10240 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: 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. > [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: > [x]: 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). > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: 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. > [!]: 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). > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.noarch.rpm > resultsdb-1.1.16-2.fc22.src.rpm > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini > resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /etc/resultsdb/settings.py.example > resultsdb.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/resultsdb/alembic.ini > resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > > > > Requires > -------- > resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python2 > fedmsg > python(abi) > python-alembic > python-flask > python-flask-login > python-flask-restful > python-flask-sqlalchemy > python-flask-wtf > python-iso8601 > python-six > python-sqlalchemy > python-wtforms > > > > Provides > -------- > resultsdb: > resultsdb > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16. > tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f > > > Comments > -------- > - Requirements in requirements.txt contains: package == version. Shouldn't > be it like >= or it's working only with one version? Cause in spec are all > Requires with >= > Yeah, that's intentional. We use requirements.txt just for development purposes for installing in virtualenv. > - Missing parameters for preventing timestamps in %install section > > - If settings.py.example is a configuration file than it should be installed > in /etc/* without .example suffix Thanks for the review! Updated version: Spec URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/specs/resultsdb.spec SRPM URL: https://mkrizek.fedorapeople.org/srpms/resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc23.src.rpm
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. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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. [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: [x]: 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). [!]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [!]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc22.noarch.rpm resultsdb-1.1.16-3.fc22.src.rpm resultsdb.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/resultsdb/settings.py resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- resultsdb.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/resultsdb/settings.py resultsdb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary resultsdb 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- resultsdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python2 fedmsg python(abi) python-alembic python-flask python-flask-login python-flask-restful python-flask-sqlalchemy python-flask-wtf python-iso8601 python-six python-sqlalchemy python-wtforms Provides -------- resultsdb: resultsdb Source checksums ---------------- https://qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/releases/resultsdb/resultsdb-1.1.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8faee45b65b74e274e7ec06ab5a4c47918361a29342c6074249f1f9c0bb4d02f Comments -------- - In fresh Fedora23 after installing of all dependencies and running python setup.py install I'm receiving: [root@qeos-135 resultsdb-1.1.16]# resultsdb Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/resultsdb", line 9, in <module> load_entry_point('resultsdb==1.1.16', 'console_scripts', 'resultsdb')() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 558, in load_entry_point return get_distribution(dist).load_entry_point(group, name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2682, in load_entry_point return ep.load() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2355, in load return self.resolve() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2361, in resolve module = __import__(self.module_name, fromlist=['__name__'], level=0) File "build/bdist.linux-x86_64/egg/resultsdb/__init__.py", line 85, in <module> Warning: You need to change the app.secret_key value for production Am I missing something? - cp and install should have -p option to preserve timestamps.
You need to change SECRET_KEY in /etc/resultsdb/settings.py to something other than default. This behaviour should probably change upstream though, but that's not related to the package review.
Ok thanks for explanation. Due to this I'm putting ack for this package.
(In reply to Jiri Kulda from comment #6) > Ok thanks for explanation. Due to this I'm putting ack for this package. Assuming that I'm interpreting your comment correctly as a pass on this package review, could you set fedora-review to '+' so that the remaining processes can be kicked off?
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/resultsdb