Spec URL: https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/blob/master/ddiskit.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ersin/ddiskit/fedora-26-x86_64/00519850-python-ddiskit/python-ddiskit-3.1-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Ddiskit is a small framework for easy creation of the Driver Update Discs. Fedora Account System Username: ersin
Hi Standa, I will look into it.
Output of rpmlint for srpm: rpmlint -iv python-ddiskit-3.1-1.fc26.src.rpm python-ddiskit.src: I: checking python-ddiskit.src: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} This package contains a file whose path contains something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a misspelling. Please check your specfile. python-ddiskit.src: W: invalid-url URL ddiskit The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. python-ddiskit.src: E: unknown-key RSA#dec6ec3f (MD5 The package was signed, but with an unknown key. See the rpm --import option for more information. python-ddiskit.src: E: invalid-spec-name Your spec filename must end with '.spec'. If it's not the case, rename your file and rebuild your package. python-ddiskit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ddiskit-3.1.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
Output of rpmlint for built rpm: $ rpmlint -iv python-ddiskit-3.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm python-ddiskit.noarch: I: checking python-ddiskit.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. python-ddiskit.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{sum} This package contains a file whose path contains something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a misspelling. Please check your specfile. python-ddiskit.noarch: W: invalid-url URL ddiskit The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. python-ddiskit.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ddiskit.bash A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. python-ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/ddiskit.py 644 /usr/bin/python This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. python-ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere. python-ddiskit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ddiskit Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings.
Hi, sorry for delay, there is my review - there is some issues, but most "MUST" are ok. So it will need some more work. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - move scripts from %{python_sitelib} to /usr/share/ddiskit - create man page - binary should have man page - mark ddiskit.bash as config with %config(noreplace) - if you have new directories in %files section, you need to define it before using with %dir - f.e. %dir %{datadir}/%{srcname} - where you are using "ddiskit" in spec, you can use %{srcname} - it is more general solution - dependency on kernel-devel - is it necessary? - empty files 'default' and 'rh-release' in 'profiles' directory - delete them or add into them some comments like "This file is for..." - no need for %{srcname} global macro - you should use %{name} macro ===== 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 (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/ddiskit/review-ddiskit/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ddiskit/templates, /usr/share/ddiskit, /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles - if you have new directories in %files section, you need to define it before using with %dir - f.e. %dir %{datadir}/%{srcname} [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles, /usr/share/ddiskit/templates, /usr/share/ddiskit - same as previous [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). - you can use %{name} macro in spec [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. - dependency on kernel-devel? [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines - it doesn't comply in issues mentioned before [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 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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). - kernel-devel requirement [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: ddiskit-3.3-1.fc27.noarch.rpm ddiskit-3.3-1.fc27.src.rpm ddiskit.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel ddiskit.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ddiskit.bash ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/ddiskit.py 644 /usr/bin/python ddiskit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles/default ddiskit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles/rh-release ddiskit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ddiskit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ddiskit.noarch: E: devel-dependency kernel-devel ddiskit.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/ddiskit.bash ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python ddiskit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit/ddiskit.py 644 /usr/bin/python ddiskit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles/default ddiskit.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles/rh-release ddiskit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ddiskit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- ddiskit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python createrepo genisoimage kernel-devel kmod python(abi) redhat-rpm-config Provides -------- ddiskit: ddiskit python2.7dist(ddiskit) python2dist(ddiskit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/archive/3.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d0fb8fb2798c56dc01a7aa589da63cfa822bc830f55b7b8405eb3fcc1df5154 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d0fb8fb2798c56dc01a7aa589da63cfa822bc830f55b7b8405eb3fcc1df5154 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ddiskit -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Petr?
Hi, Latest version: https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/archive/3.4.tar.gz Fixed Issues: - move scripts from %{python_sitelib} to /usr/share/ddiskit - create man page - binary should have man page - mark ddiskit.bash as config with %config(noreplace) - if you have new directories in %files section, you need to define it before using with %dir - f.e. %dir %{datadir}/%{srcname} - where you are using "ddiskit" in spec, you can use %{srcname} - it is more general solution - empty files 'default' and 'rh-release' in 'profiles' directory - delete them or add into them some comments like "This file is for..." - no need for %{srcname} global macro - you should use %{name} macro dependency on kernel-devel - is it necessary? ----> YES Many thanks, -Petr
Please use a fully qualified Source URL: For example: Source0: https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
+1 for Neal suggestion and here are other issues $ rpmlint -iv ddiskit-3.4-1.fc27.noarch.rpm ddiskit.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ddiskit/ddiskit.config A file not in /etc or /var is marked as being a configuration file. Please put your conf files in /etc or /var. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint -iv ddiskit-3.4-1.fc27.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Hi, there is output of fedora-review, some other issues appeared, would you mind solving them? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/ddiskit/ddiskit.config See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel buildrequires needs to be python2-devel and python2-setuptools - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros - 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. Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - weak dependencies on mock and rpm-build? why and is it necessary? - if it is not python module (it is not meant to import ddiskit scripts in other programs), no directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit and files in it shouldn't be there - use fully qualified url ===== 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 (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/ddiskit/review-ddiskit/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ddiskit [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ddiskit [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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 40960 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]: 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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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 Pxthon: [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 - requires for python-2.7 need to begin with python2 [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]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: ddiskit-3.4-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ddiskit-3.4-1.fc25.src.rpm ddiskit.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ddiskit/ddiskit.config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ddiskit.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/ddiskit/ddiskit.config 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- ddiskit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python config(ddiskit) createrepo genisoimage python(abi) rpm Provides -------- ddiskit: config(ddiskit) ddiskit python2.7dist(ddiskit) python2dist(ddiskit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/archive/3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0c314b5262a2a7a2c3f115d6dc166a31f96dfe062a55a93ecd4546a981ac3731 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0c314b5262a2a7a2c3f115d6dc166a31f96dfe062a55a93ecd4546a981ac3731 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ddiskit Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10) > - weak dependencies on mock and rpm-build? why and is it necessary? I think some description is needed regarding what ddiskit is, as it may clarify why there are all these dependencies. So, ddiskit is a helper tool which aides the creation of driver update disks, which contain RPMs with out-of-tree kernel modules. As a result, it implements some wrappers for the related programs that are used for the creation of these driver update disks along with their content, and should be called directly otherwise, like rpmbuild or genisoimage. Currently, it utilizes the following tools: * (rpmbuild and kernel-devel and redhat-rpm-config) or mock, for local kernel module RPM build. * createrepo and genisoimage, for driver disk ISO generation. * rpm is used for RPM files parsing. * quilt (and now git) are used for some auxiliary tasks (like supporting backporting workflow, or performing additional checks). So, rpmbuild, kernel-devel, redhat-rpm-config, mock, quilt and git are not strictly needed for ddiskit's operation (like, it can run without them), but its functionality is significantly impaired by the lack of the first four packages, and somewhat affected in case of lack of the latter two packages.
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10) > - if it is not python module (it is not meant to import ddiskit scripts in > other > programs), no directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit and files > in it shouldn't be there Well, it is written in a way which does not prohibit import, and it actually may be useful in some use cases, but so far there's no clear separation of the package-able commands as an autonomous package from the CLI part (i.e. they are both implemented in ddiskit.py).
(In reply to Eugene Syromiatnikov from comment #11) > (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10) > > - weak dependencies on mock and rpm-build? why and is it necessary? > > I think some description is needed regarding what ddiskit is, as it may > clarify why there are all these dependencies. So, ddiskit is a helper tool > which aides the creation of driver update disks, which contain RPMs with > out-of-tree kernel modules. As a result, it implements some wrappers for the > related programs that are used for the creation of these driver update disks > along with their content, and should be called directly otherwise, like > rpmbuild or genisoimage. Currently, it utilizes the following tools: > * (rpmbuild and kernel-devel and redhat-rpm-config) or mock, for local > kernel module RPM build. > * createrepo and genisoimage, for driver disk ISO generation. > * rpm is used for RPM files parsing. > * quilt (and now git) are used for some auxiliary tasks (like supporting > backporting workflow, or performing additional checks). > So, rpmbuild, kernel-devel, redhat-rpm-config, mock, quilt and git are not > strictly needed for ddiskit's operation (like, it can run without them), but > its functionality is significantly impaired by the lack of the first four > packages, and somewhat affected in case of lack of the latter two packages. Ok, noted. I consider it as issue no longer then.
(In reply to Eugene Syromiatnikov from comment #12) > (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #10) > > - if it is not python module (it is not meant to import ddiskit scripts in > > other > > programs), no directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ddiskit and files > > in it shouldn't be there > > Well, it is written in a way which does not prohibit import, and it actually > may be useful in some use cases, but so far there's no clear separation of > the package-able commands as an autonomous package from the CLI part (i.e. > they are both implemented in ddiskit.py). Ok, I think we need to understand what ddiskit tool should be. There are two ways (other is more complicated...) and each has consequences: 1) ddiskit will be a tool written in python, not python module - other python scripts won't be able to import it - name will be ddiskit and there will not be any files in %{python_sitelib} or 2) ddiskit will be a python module - other scripts will be able to import it (there will be files in %{python_sitelib}), here are difficulties come: a) ddiskit will support both Pythons - then name of source rpm must be python-ddiskit and generates binary rpms python2-ddiskit and python3-ddiskit b) ddiskit will support Python-2.7 only (IMHO I will not recommend it, because in near future python3 will become "main" python and python-2.7) - source rpm and binary rpm will be python2-ddiskit c) ddiskit will support only Python3 - source rpm and binary rpm will be python3-ddiskit Which is applicable for ddiskit? I thought it is tool only and its scripts will not be importable - this is what I got from talk with Petr Oros.
Ddiskit is tool written in python. I updated setup and i hope, now it will be ok. Please check latest version ddiskit-3.5 Thanks, -Petr
$ rpmlint -v ddiskit-3.5-1.fc27.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings $ rpmlint -iv ddiskit-3.5-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
All good, I give review+ 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 (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/ddiskit/review-ddiskit/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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 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: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 ===== 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]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: ddiskit-3.5-1.fc25.noarch.rpm ddiskit-3.5-1.fc25.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- ddiskit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python config(ddiskit) createrepo genisoimage python(abi) rpm Provides -------- ddiskit: config(ddiskit) ddiskit python2.7dist(ddiskit) python2dist(ddiskit) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/orosp/ddiskit/archive/3.5/ddiskit-3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb63a179a3ef88058efdc998e00a1df939d2177440415bac8a005ef49d25e444 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb63a179a3ef88058efdc998e00a1df939d2177440415bac8a005ef49d25e444 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ddiskit Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Thanks! So what's the next step?
The process is described at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process . You are contributor and you will need to make SCM admin request (about 8th step in instructions for contributor) and follow other steps after that.
Thanks!
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/12968 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/12967 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/12966 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/12965
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-727353b317
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-71373c9e9b
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d262c263ee
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-71373c9e9b
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-d262c263ee
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-727353b317
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ddiskit-3.6-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.