https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902078 --- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56359926 > > > %package -n python3-%{pypi_name} > > Summary: %{summary} > > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} > > Use the %py_provides macro instead: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_the_py_provides_macro > Will fix this during import. > Approved. Full review below: > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > [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]: 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. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 7 > files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-nest_asyncio/python- > nest_asyncio/licensecheck.txt > [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [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]: 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: > [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. > [-]: %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. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: python3-nest_asyncio-1.4.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm > python-nest_asyncio-1.4.3-1.fc34.src.rpm > python3-nest_asyncio.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio -> > syncopation > python3-nest_asyncio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio > -> syncopation > python-nest_asyncio.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asyncio -> > syncopation > python-nest_asyncio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> > syncopation > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-nest_asyncio > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nest_asyncio/nest_asyncio-1. > 4.3.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > eaa09ef1353ebefae19162ad423eef7a12166bcc63866f8bff8f3635353cd9fa > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > eaa09ef1353ebefae19162ad423eef7a12166bcc63866f8bff8f3635353cd9fa > > > Requires > -------- > python3-nest_asyncio (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > python(abi) > > > > Provides > -------- > python3-nest_asyncio: > python-nest_asyncio > python3-nest_asyncio > python3.9-nest_asyncio > python3.9dist(nest-asyncio) > python3dist(nest-asyncio) -- 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
