https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910798 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pikachu.2014@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #1 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated General comments: ================= - Nice use of the pyproject-rpm-macros. Issues: ======= - Package should BR python3-devel. - Apparently bogus Requires on setuptools. - Should not use python_provide macro. - Do you need the Provides: “%{srcname} = %{version}-%{release}”? It is permissible, but most Python packages do not do this; is there reason to believe anyone will be looking to “dnf install furo” instead of “dnf install python3-furo”? Otherwise, I would strongly encourage removing this line. See the checklist below for details. ===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/1910798-python- furo/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 (except as otherwise noted) [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python You should add “BuildRequires: python3-devel” even though you are using the pyproject-rpm-macros. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies and the Usage section under https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros. The python_provide macro is obsolete. Remove the line “%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}”. As long as you are not packaging for Fedora 32, you do not even need a “%py_provides” line. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro. [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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Manual “Requires: %{py3_dist setuptools}” in the spec file appears to be bogus. The string “setuptools” does not appear in the source tarball at all. Please evaluate whether plain “furo” Provides is actually useful. [?]: Package functions as described. It would be too tedious to evaluate this—given that it is sanely installed, I am assuming it is OK. [x]: Latest version is packaged. (It was the latest version when review was requested. Consider a prompt update to the current latest version once approved.) [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. I’m going to say this is not required, since there are currently no tests to run. There is upstream infrastructure to run tests, though. If you want to be prepared for the appearance of tests in future versions, consider changing “%generate_buildrequires” to “%generate_buildrequires -x test”, and adding a %check section containing the line “%pytest”. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-furo-2020.12.9b21-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-furo-2020.12.9b21-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/furo/furo-2020.12.9b21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8384004939074eaad7d4bf0562acf54bd8603c9bc6dc8d93a87dac307272a52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8384004939074eaad7d4bf0562acf54bd8603c9bc6dc8d93a87dac307272a52 Requires -------- python3-furo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.9dist(sphinx) python3dist(setuptools) Provides -------- python3-furo: furo python-furo python3-furo python3.9-furo python3.9dist(furo) python3dist(furo) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1910798 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Perl, R, Haskell, 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
