SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint.spec Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3863550 rpmlint: $ rpmlint /tmp/spacewalk-build/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm /tmp/spacewalk-build/noarch/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Taking it.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-]: MUST 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 %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. >>>> GPLv2+ is specified, GPLv2 found on project's website (see >>>> https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/browser/LICENSE ) [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT >>>> Please, stick to using only one of these macros throughout the spec file Notes [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 >>>> Since the package is intended for RHEL5 too, ignore these [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. >>>> Would be nice to have Rpmlint ------- Checking: spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm: /bin/sh config(spacewalk-pylint) = 0.3-1.fc18 pylint Provides -------- /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/spacewalk-pylint-0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm: config(spacewalk-pylint) = 0.3-1.fc18 spacewalk-pylint = 0.3-1.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- /home/tradej/reviews/800899/spacewalk-pylint-0.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 6449170b4bf47b1634cc1e95aa89da72 MD5SUM upstream package : 4169ba73e6debe900cfa2882d56f0364 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: *** NOT APPROVED ***
I'm not sure why the md5 mismatch, when I download spacewalk-pylint-0.3.tar.gz I got md5sum 6449170b4bf47b1634cc1e95aa89da72 too. Anyway, all other issues addressed, Updated: SRPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-pylint/spacewalk-pylint.spec
I'm not sure either, but since diff is clean, it doesn't matter. Good to go.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: spacewalk-pylint Short Description: Pylint configuration for spacewalk python packages Owners: msuchy Branches: F-17, F-16, EL-5, EL-6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el5
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el6
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc17
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc16
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
spacewalk-pylint-0.5-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: spacewalk-pylint New Branches: epel7 Owners: msuchy InitialCC:
branch epel7 was not created, can you investigate that Jon? I will try to submit it again.
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6028 Being investigated. . .