https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914637 --- Comment #1 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== [!]: The %python_provides macro is obsolete and should be removed. If you are not building for Fedora 32, you do not need %py_provides either. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_provides. [?]: This package could really benefit from using at least the portion of pyproject-rpm-macros that offers generated BuildRequires. This will give properly versioned BR’s, where applicable, and will keep you from forgetting to update them when upstream does. See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros. This is not mandatory. [!]: You need to properly package the mayavi extra. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python_extras. [!]: You do not need to explicitly Require: (or Suggest:) the Python packages that are already in install_requires in setup.py. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_automatically_generated_dependencies. [x]: Conflicts with python3-bout++ are acceptable because this is being split out from bout++ and the problem will be promptly resolved. Please use multi-build updates to update both packages together: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/rawhide-gating/multi-builds/ [!]: Package has (a single trivial) test but there is no %check section. To run the tests, add a BR on python3dist(pytest) and use the %pytest macro to run the tests. Or, in this case, just %{python3} -m unittest ought to work. [!]: Modules inside the package (anim.py, boutgrid.py, geqdsk.py) have shebang lines. This does not make sense since they are not installed as executables. Remove the shebang lines in %prep, e.g. by: sed -r -i '1{/#!/d}' %{pypi_name}/{anim,boutgrid,geqdsk}.py ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/boututils/1914637-python- boututils/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/boututils(python3-bout++), /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/boututils/__pycache__(python3-bout++) Conflicts with python3-bout++ are acceptable because this is being split out from bout++ and the problem will be promptly resolved. Please use multi-build updates to update both packages together. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/rawhide-gating/multi-builds/ [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. Conflicts with python3-bout++ are acceptable because this is being split out from bout++ and the problem will be promptly resolved. Please use multi-build updates to update both packages together. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/rawhide-gating/multi-builds/ [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. Should not duplicate Requires that are already handled by the automatic dependency generator. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (Issues noted elsewhere) [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: 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]: 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 (Issues noted elsewhere) [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: [-]: 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). Duplicate manual Requires with automatic ones. Results in both python3dist(foo) and python3.9dist(foo). This works but the duplication should not be there. [ ]: 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. Package has (a single trivial) test but there is no %check section. To run the tests, add a BR on python3dist(pytest) and use the %pytest macro to run the tests. Or, in this case, just %{python3} -m unittest ought to work. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-boututils-0.1.6-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-boututils-0.1.6-0.1.fc34.src.rpm python3-boututils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Utils -> Tills python3-boututils.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/anim.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/boutgrid.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/geqdsk.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python-boututils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Utils -> Tills python-boututils.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-boututils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Utils -> Tills python3-boututils.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/anim.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/boutgrid.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-boututils.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/boututils/geqdsk.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/boututils/boututils-0.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0be867137f0ac8ddeadde0588bca0c67750f27a33a28ff94fe925c4f4c99609c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0be867137f0ac8ddeadde0588bca0c67750f27a33a28ff94fe925c4f4c99609c Requires -------- python3-boututils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(future) python3.9dist(h5py) python3.9dist(matplotlib) python3.9dist(netcdf4) python3.9dist(numpy) python3.9dist(scipy) python3dist(future) python3dist(matplotlib) python3dist(netcdf4) python3dist(numpy) python3dist(pyqt5) python3dist(scipy) Provides -------- python3-boututils: python-boututils python3-boututils python3.9-boututils python3.9dist(boututils) python3dist(boututils) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1914637 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, R, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Perl 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
