Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 858818
Review Request: sugar-srilanka - Game about the geography of Sri Lanka
Last modified: 2018-06-18 08:54:04 EDT
Spec URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka-1-0.fc17.src.rpm Description: Game about the geography of Sri Lanka URL: http://activities.sugarlabs.org//en-US/sugar/addon/4600 Fedora Account System Username: snavin
I did a scratch build in koji and tested the rpm in sugar-emulator. Works fine. koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4845843
Looks good for me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kalpa/fedora- review/858818-sugar-srilanka/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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. Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: sugar-srilanka-1-0.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sugar-srilanka 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sugar-srilanka (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python sugar Provides -------- sugar-srilanka: sugar-srilanka Source checksums ---------------- http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/downloads/file/28223/i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8547b581a73b9b6b1b9f8a23d2e1b4471a5887fa8f9fab9be3792d8084205f21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8547b581a73b9b6b1b9f8a23d2e1b4471a5887fa8f9fab9be3792d8084205f21 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vb 858818
Danishka, can we have python2-devel in BuildRequires ?
SPEC file URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka-1-1.fc18.src.rpm Please note that, I got an warning while running rpmlint. "strange-permission i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo 0640L" I have added following entry under %files but no luck. %attr(644,-,-)%{sugaractivitydir}/IknowSriLanka.activity/
> Please note that, I got an warning while running rpmlint. > "strange-permission i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo 0640L" > > I have added following entry under %files but no luck. > > %attr(644,-,-)%{sugaractivitydir}/IknowSriLanka.activity/ Because it's the source file that's got the issues not the files that are installed as part of the build. Check the i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo in ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES or where ever your building it. I suspect "chmod 660 i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo" will likely fix the problem
Thanks Peter for the point. 664 fixed the issue. SPEC file URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka.spec SRPM URL: http://snavin.fedorapeople.org/packages/sugar-srilanka/sugar-srilanka-1-2.fc18.src.rpm
Package APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kalpa/fedora- review/858818-sugar-srilanka/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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. Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: sugar-srilanka-1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sugar-srilanka 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sugar-srilanka (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python sugar Provides -------- sugar-srilanka: sugar-srilanka Source checksums ---------------- http://activities.sugarlabs.org/en-US/sugar/downloads/file/28223/i_know_sri_lanka-1.xo : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8547b581a73b9b6b1b9f8a23d2e1b4471a5887fa8f9fab9be3792d8084205f21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8547b581a73b9b6b1b9f8a23d2e1b4471a5887fa8f9fab9be3792d8084205f21 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vb 858818
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sugar-srilanka Short Description: Game about the geography of Sri Lanka Owners: snavin Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC:
@Danishka You should set fedora-csv to ?
ah ok :)
"fedora-cvs + will" be set by the guy who creates the Git module for you. You have to set "fedora-cvs ?" if you request such a module.
Git done (by process-git-requests).
sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc19
sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc17
sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18
Package sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-12554/sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
sugar-srilanka-1-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Wait, Why can I see this? /usr/bin/env
> Why can I see this? > > /usr/bin/env See it where? Spec looks fine to me
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=5191832 | Requires | /usr/bin/env | /usr/bin/python
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #21) > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=5191832 > > | Requires > | /usr/bin/env > | /usr/bin/python Fixed in the recent builds, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=12892555 Good to close?