https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821189 --- Comment #2 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Aniket, Thank you for submitting the package. As you say, this package needs no "python" prefix because this package is not a library package. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming Please check my review and ask if you have any questions. I checked this package but I couldn't install it because of dependency problem... rpmlint is a very useful to detect common errors. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_use_rpmlint Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Source0 Please make sure the source code url is available. ``` $ wget https://github.com/aflc/snakemake/archive/v5.12.3/snakemake-5.12.3.tar.gz --2020-06-05 22:19:21-- https://github.com/aflc/snakemake/archive/v5.12.3/snakemake-5.12.3.tar.gz Resolving github.com (github.com)... 52.192.72.89 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|52.192.72.89|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2020-06-05 22:19:21 ERROR 404: Not Found. ``` You can use the %pypi_source macro. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi - Dependencies Please check dependent packages. Some packages don't seem to exist. ``` $ sudo dnf install -y ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 0:49:45 ago on Fri 05 Jun 2020 10:06:39 PM UTC. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python3.9dist(datrie) needed by snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64 - nothing provides python3.9dist(ratelimiter) needed by snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64 - nothing provides python3.9dist(toposort) needed by snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64 ``` You can see the list of dependencies: $ rpm -qp --requires snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm - Version Please update the version if newer version exists. - BuildRequires "gcc-c++" is not needed if you don't build c/c++ applications. "python-unversioned-command" is probably not needed because packages on Fedora doesn't directly use /usr/bin/python. - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [?]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 682 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821189-snakemake/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: snakemake (description) [-]: 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 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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [!]: 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 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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/aflc/snakemake/archive/v5.12.3/snakemake-5.12.3.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [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. [!]: 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 [!]: 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 [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.3 starting (python version = 3.9.0)... 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: 2.3 INFO: Mock Version: 2.3 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821189-snakemake/results/snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64.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/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821189-snakemake/results/snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm snakemake-5.12.3-1.fc33.src.rpm snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Workflow -> Work flow, Work-flow, Workforce snakemake.x86_64: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %python_provide snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Workflows -> Work flows, Work-flows, Workloads snakemake.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads snakemake.x86_64: E: no-binary snakemake.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snakemake/jobscript.sh 644 /bin/sh snakemake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snakemake snakemake.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary snakemake-bash-completion snakemake.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Workflow -> Work flow, Work-flow, Workforce snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflow -> work flow, work-flow, workforce snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Workflows -> Work flows, Work-flows, Workloads snakemake.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workflows -> work flows, work-flows, workloads snakemake.src:68: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 68) snakemake.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/aflc/snakemake/archive/v5.12.3/snakemake-5.12.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 13 warnings. Requires -------- snakemake (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(appdirs) python3.9dist(configargparse) python3.9dist(datrie) python3.9dist(docutils) python3.9dist(gitpython) python3.9dist(jsonschema) python3.9dist(nbformat) python3.9dist(psutil) python3.9dist(pyyaml) python3.9dist(ratelimiter) python3.9dist(requests) python3.9dist(setuptools) python3.9dist(toposort) python3.9dist(wrapt) Provides -------- snakemake: python3.9dist(snakemake) python3dist(snakemake) snakemake snakemake(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (cd5b7df) last change: 2020-03-19 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1821189 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, R, PHP, Perl, fonts, Ruby, Haskell 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
