https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809405 --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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/ ^ We'll look into this later. There are a few issues, but the package isn't quite complete at the moment. So, we can take it one issue at a time. ===== 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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. Looks OK: $ licensecheck -r . | sed -e '/UNKNOWN/ d' -e '/GENERATED/d' ./LICENSE: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License ./sumatra/web/static/css/bootstrap.min.css: Expat License ./sumatra/web/static/js/bootstrap.min.js: Expat License ./build/lib/sumatra/web/static/css/bootstrap.min.css: Expat License ./build/lib/sumatra/web/static/js/bootstrap.min.js: Expat License [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/bin(filesystem) ^ Best to list the various binaries instead of owning %{_bindir}. That way, if a new version includes new binaries, you will know when the build fails. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. ^ Includes some css, js and fonts. We'll need to check where they are and if they can be unbundled. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Looks OK [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. ^ Looks OK, but worth double-checking. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. ^ No docs have been included. The sources include documentation. Please consider building them and including them. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ rpmlint picked up on this. One issue seems to be that the pypi name is "Sumatra" with a capital "S". That may explain why %pypi_source doesn't work. You'll need to update it to `%pypi_source Sumatra` or define another variable: %global pretty_name Sumatra and then use that where needed. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. ^ Shouldn't have conflicts, but we'll check this when the package can be installed. [-]: 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. ^ We'll need to check this when the package installs correctly. [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: [?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. ^ Should be OK. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. ^ Should be OK [?]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python ^ Not yet :) [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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sumatra/sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ ^ Capital "s" needed. [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ Needs checking. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ^ Does the source not include the LICENSE file? [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ^ Will need double checking. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ This will come later. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ Looks like it does contain tests. Please check. [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. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/srpm-unpacked/sumatra.spec See: (this test has no URL) ^ You need to regenerate the srpm after you change the spec name. The name of the spec, and that of the srpm must match. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.2 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... 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 package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.2 INFO: Mock Version: 2.2 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-sumatra.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: E: useless-provides python38-sumatra python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-sumatra.noarch: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin python3-sumatra.noarch: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh 644 python3-sumatra.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/bin/smt-complete.sh python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/pfi.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sumatra/tee.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb python-sumatra.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-sumatra.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz python-sumatra.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-sumatra.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sumatra/sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 8 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/open-research/sumatra/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 Requires -------- python3-sumatra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(django) >= 1.6 with python3.8dist(django) < 1.9) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(django-tagging) python3.8dist(docutils) python3.8dist(future) python3.8dist(httplib2) python3.8dist(jinja2) python3.8dist(parameters) python3dist(gitpython) python3dist(hgapi) python3dist(mercurial) Provides -------- python3-sumatra: python-sumatra python3-sumatra python3.8dist(sumatra) python38-sumatra python3dist(sumatra) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1809405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, fonts, Java, PHP, R, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity 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
