https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770162 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- The spec file in comment 4 does not have the sed command. I think you meant copr build 01112672 instead, right? I'll review that one. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== 1. This is not really an issue. I just wanted to point out that you can use this URL to get a source tarball with a name in it: Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags. 2. The License file must be included with the %license macro. Add this to the %files section: %license COPYING.LESSER The question in my mind is whether it should be: %license COPYING COPYING.LESSER Why did upstream include a copy of the GPL in COPYING if the project is licensed under the LGPL? Is there something in the archive that is licensed with the GPL? 3. This part of %prep is not necessary: # Remove bundled egg-info rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info The guidelines require that binary eggs be removed in %prep, but (a) this directory does not exist in the upstream tarball and (b) even if it did exist, it would be egg metadata, not a binary egg. 4. These manually specified dependencies: Requires: python3dist(typing-extensions) < 4.0 Requires: python3dist(typing-extensions) >= 3.6 Requires: python3dist(typing-inspect) >= 0.3.1 are redundant with the automatically generated dependencies; see the Requires section below. Note the duplication. You can remove the Requires lines from your spec file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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]: 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). [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-molten-0.7.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python-molten-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Bogdanp/molten/archive/v0.7.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aad3846283bf0080d53801b877df2640c170807404c46b931fca7d818af05bc2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aad3846283bf0080d53801b877df2640c170807404c46b931fca7d818af05bc2 Requires -------- python3-molten (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) = 3.8 python3.8dist(typing-extensions) >= 3.6 python3.8dist(typing-extensions) < 4 python3.8dist(typing-inspect) >= 0.3.1 python3dist(typing-extensions) >= 3.6 python3dist(typing-extensions) < 4.0 python3dist(typing-inspect) >= 0.3.1 Provides -------- python3-molten: python-molten = 0.7.4-1.fc32 python3-molten = 0.7.4-1.fc32 python3.8dist(molten) = 0.7.4 python3dist(molten) = 0.7.4 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --copr-build https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/akhaitov/python-molten/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01112672-python-molten/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
