https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486238 --- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani <manisandro@xxxxxxxxx> --- Created attachment 1321593 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1321593&action=edit Patch to build docs You could enable the docs as per patch attached: - Just use the local inventory files, if they are available, and skip the ones that are not available - some cross-links will be missing in the compiled manual, but not that tragic I suppose. - Some more BRs are needed - The manual build process tries to execute the subliminal script, which however is only created during the install process. Hence the manual build process moved to the %install section, I don't know whether that is super-elegant but I also don't think it's a huge violation of the packaging guidelines. Alternative would be a bootstrap build, where you submit the first build without building the docs, and then enable the docs from the second build onwards, and adding the package itself as a BR. - The doc build probably should be switched to using python3-sphinx for a pure python3 build, since for instance the subliminal script is python3. I'll leave it to you whether you want to build the docs, but IMO it would be a pity not to, since you already included much of the required work in the spec file. For the rest, all ok, approved. 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. [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 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-subliminal , python3-subliminal , python-subliminal-doc [?]: 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. [!]: %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: python2-subliminal-2.0.5-2.fc28.noarch.rpm python3-subliminal-2.0.5-2.fc28.noarch.rpm python-subliminal-doc-2.0.5-2.fc28.noarch.rpm python-subliminal-2.0.5-2.fc28.src.rpm python2-subliminal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone python2-subliminal.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-subliminal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone python3-subliminal.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-subliminal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subliminal python-subliminal-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone python-subliminal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-subliminal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone python2-subliminal.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-subliminal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone python3-subliminal.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-subliminal.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary subliminal python-subliminal-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- python2-subliminal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-babelfish python2-beautifulsoup4 python2-chardet python2-dogpile-cache python2-enzyme python2-guessit python2-pysrt python2-requests python2-stevedore python3-subliminal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-babelfish python3-beautifulsoup4 python3-chardet python3-dogpile-cache python3-enzyme python3-guessit python3-pysrt python3-requests python3-stevedore python-subliminal-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python2-subliminal: python-subliminal python2-subliminal python2.7dist(subliminal) python2dist(subliminal) python3-subliminal: python3-subliminal python3.6dist(subliminal) python3dist(subliminal) python-subliminal-doc: python-subliminal-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Diaoul/subliminal/archive/2.0.5/subliminal-2.0.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b956f02ae0286ad04be5bbf1c5570964aa17bb53c99fcce067e8334d99516ae2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b956f02ae0286ad04be5bbf1c5570964aa17bb53c99fcce067e8334d99516ae2 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1486238 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
