https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821189 --- Comment #5 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Aniket, Thank you for your fixes, but there are some issues to fix. Please check my review. 1. Using `python` command Could you please fix the code where `python` is used? because Fedora's Python package guildelines says that "/usr/bin/python (as well as /usr/bin/env python and similar) MUST NOT be used in shebang lines or as a dependency of a package." Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multiple_python_runtimes I think the code should be modified like this: ``` *** tests/test_linting.py.orig 2020-06-27 06:13:38.434409598 +0000 --- tests/test_linting.py 2020-06-27 06:13:50.992640111 +0000 *************** *** 18,24 **** out = ( sp.check_output( [ ! "python", "-m", "snakemake", "--lint", --- 18,24 ---- out = ( sp.check_output( [ ! "python3", "-m", "snakemake", "--lint", ``` 2. Runtime dependencies The spec file of this package contains unsatisfied runtime dependencies. I think `datrie`, `ratelimiter` and `toposort` are also needed to submit because they still don't exist in Fedora's repository[1]. As you know Koji is the software that builds RPM packages for the Fedora project. We can confirm packages successfully build on Fedora supported architectures by using Koji but we can't confirm correctness of runtime dependencies. Reviews must check where runtime dependencies[2] are met but runtime dependencies of this package are unsatisfied in my environment(fc32). ``` $ sudo dnf install -y ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 1:29:53 ago on Sat 27 Jun 2020 04:57:44 AM UTC. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python3.8dist(datrie) needed by snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64 - nothing provides python3.8dist(ratelimiter) needed by snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64 - nothing provides python3.8dist(toposort) needed by snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc32.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) ``` 3. fedora-review report Here is the output of fedora-review for reference. fedora-review tried to install the binary package, but it failed to install it. 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/ - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - 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. [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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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. [!]: 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: [!]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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 = 3.8.3)... 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-5.19.3-1.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-5.19.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: snakemake-5.19.3-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm snakemake-5.19.3-1.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/executors/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:67: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 67) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake/archive/v5.19.3/snakemake-5.19.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a971a6cbf0a7738faafb254d9a1093703a6811543295747a26183c833dc49ef3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a971a6cbf0a7738faafb254d9a1093703a6811543295747a26183c833dc49ef3 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 (68531f4) last change: 2020-05-31 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1821189 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Ruby, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- 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
