https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1512226 Aivar Annamaa <aivar.annamaa@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aivar.annamaa@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Aivar Annamaa <aivar.annamaa@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here is my unofficial review. (It is also my first package review.) I did not repeat the issues reported by Athos. During review I also created an alternative spec-file which fixed some of the problems listed below. Should I post this as well? General comments: I think it's a useful package. The spec file was clearly written but requires more work. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Source package name should be python-flask-cors and python3-flask-cors should defined as subpackage (as Miro already said). See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Python_source_package_naming This would allow providing binary packages for both Python 2 and Python 3 (I tried this approach and was able to build both). - "Requres:" part is missing. I would use "Requires: %{py3_dist flask six}". Not sure how it should be if common Python 2 + Python 3 package is wanted. Looks like in some case it's done with conditionals (eg. https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-flask-wtf/sources/spec) but if I've understood correctly then "Requires: %{py2_dist flask six} %{py3_dist flask six}" would also do the right thing (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names). - I would use %py3_build instead of `%{__python3} setup.py build` and %py3_install instead of `%{__python3} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT` - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff: - Only in upstream-unpacked/Source0: flask-cors-3.0.3 - Only in srpm-unpacked/3.0.3.tar.gz-extract: python3-flask-cors-3.0.3 Looks like in the tar.gz in srpm, the top directory has been renamed. - Why are there spaces between CORS and parentheses in Summary? ===== 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]: 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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Note: See the "Issues" section above [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. Note: Requires is missing. See the "Issues" section above [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Note: Python specific problems listed separately. [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]: 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. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: problem with package naming, see the "Issues" section. [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). [!]: Package functions as described. Note: installed package is not usable because Flask doesn't get installed. See the "Issues" section about missing Requires. [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. [?]: 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: python3-flask-cors-3.0.3-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-flask-cors-3.0.3-1.fc27.src.rpm python3-flask-cors.src: W: file-size-mismatch 3.0.3.tar.gz = 28464, https://github.com/corydolphin/flask-cors/archive/3.0.3.tar.gz = 28468 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-flask-cors.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/corydolphin/flask-cors <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Note: I assume the first line here isn't an actual error. Requires -------- python3-flask-cors (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-flask-cors: python3-flask-cors python3.6dist(flask-cors) python3dist(flask-cors) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/corydolphin/flask-cors/archive/3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bd1584c6ddac6d5f0616ece50c7f2f7ae1c68e72c10e2ecadd7a02cbd8eafabe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbd7c63ed38f9ef3f096582408429dd65150e106006a87ad9fb86e854dd95b8e diff -r also reports differences -- 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
