https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795283 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks pretty good---a few tweaks and we're ready! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - nothing provides python3.8dist(pathlib) needed by python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch Pathlib is now part of the standard library, so it isn't required as a package any more. It was retired in Fedora already: https://docs.python.org/3/library/pathlib.html?highlight=pathlib#module-pathlib https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0428/ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pathlib/blob/master/f/dead.package Please remove "pathlib" from setup.py using `sed` so that the automatic generators don't pick it up. That should fix this. - Please generate the docs if that's not too much trouble. - Shouldn't the file section be python3-%{pypi_name}? - Please check the SourceURL, currently returns a 404. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)". 114 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/licensecheck.txt ^ The included tutorial is CC-BY-SA from the looks of it. Please include this in the license field. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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. ^ May be needed if you generate docs. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 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]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/G-Node/odml/archive/v1.4.4/odml-1.4.4.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ ^ Please check this---the SOURCEURL does return a 404. [-]: 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). ^ Look OK but pathlib needs to be removed. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ Please document why the test has been deselected, and please report it upstream if not yet done. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. ^ Will have to be done after the pathlib fix when it can be installed. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.21 starting (python version = 3.7.6)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.21 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.21 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/results/python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-review/1795283-python-odml/results/python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python-odml-1.4.4-1.fc32.src.rpm python-odml.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organised -> organized, organist ^ Please tweak this, specs use American English. python-odml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reproducibility -> reprehensibility ^ Please ignore. python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlconversion python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlconvert python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmltordf python-odml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary odmlview python-odml.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) organised -> organized, organist python-odml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reproducibility -> reprehensibility python-odml.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/G-Node/odml/archive/v1.4.4/odml-1.4.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- python-odml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(docopt) python3.8dist(lxml) python3.8dist(pathlib) python3.8dist(pyyaml) python3.8dist(rdflib) python3.8dist(setuptools) Provides -------- python-odml: python-odml python3.8dist(odml) python3dist(odml) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1795283 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, Java, C/C++ 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
