Bug 1479280 - Review Request:python-jieba - Chinese Words Segementation Utilities
Review Request:python-jieba - Chinese Words Segementation Utilities
Status: POST
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Zamir SUN
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2017-08-08 04:52 EDT by Ye Cheng
Modified: 2018-03-05 05:34 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
sztsian: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Comment 1 Zamir SUN 2017-08-17 10:52:00 EDT
Thanks for the work. Looks good to me. Please fix the following two before push to dist-git.

* Description are sentenses, so should end with a dot(.)
* You can use %{srcname} to replace 'jieba' in Source0

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: 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". 73 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1479280
[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
[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 81920 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: 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-jieba , python3-jieba
[ ]: 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
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: python2-jieba-0.38-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

python2-jieba (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-jieba (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/fxsjy/jieba/archive/4eef868338d1938d5d2410992e2dcd0f2670bea6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 36148cbe5d46ba28d8b901be24fa766220ab5db0894b3c02c5806a6fc2b060d2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 36148cbe5d46ba28d8b901be24fa766220ab5db0894b3c02c5806a6fc2b060d2

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1479280
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Comment 2 Zamir SUN 2017-08-17 10:52:30 EDT
Package approved by zsun.
Comment 3 Ye Cheng 2017-09-29 09:07:26 EDT
Release version bump with Chinese summery and description added.

New srpm URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yecheng/python-jieba/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00609456-python-jieba/python-jieba-0.38-1.fc28.src.rpm

New spec file: Please $git clone http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/git/yecheng/python-jieba/python-jieba.git
Sorry, I haven't yet figure out how to access the spec file in new copr.
Comment 4 Zamir SUN 2017-09-29 09:34:36 EDT
(In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #3)
> Release version bump with Chinese summery and description added.
> New spec file: Please $git clone
> http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/git/yecheng/python-jieba/python-
> jieba.git
> Sorry, I haven't yet figure out how to access the spec file in new copr.
Can you post a pure RAW spec file link? So that fedora-review tool can detect and parse it.
Comment 6 Ye Cheng 2018-03-05 01:18:54 EST
Fedpkg request-repo complains that the review is passed 60 days ago when I tried to request a repository on SCM, but upstream didn't release a new version nor any editing of the package was needed yet.
What should I do to push the package to SCM?
Comment 7 Zamir SUN 2018-03-05 05:34:42 EST

Please read this wiki
You should use fedrepo-req.
And if you also have this problem, I suggest you send an email to devel list or infra list asking for help.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.