https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917902 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(scoady@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #1 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- A good package with several small tweaks required. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - License field is not correct. Should be “ASL 2.0”, not “Apache 2.0”. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. - There are extra parentheses in the BR’s: BuildRequires: (python3dist(requests) >= 2.21.0) BuildRequires: (python3dist(six) >= 1.13.0) can just be: BuildRequires: python3dist(requests) >= 2.21.0 BuildRequires: python3dist(six) >= 1.13.0 (See also pyproject-rpm-macros, which can generate BR’s automatically from the Python build system so your BR’s are never out of date: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros) - The minimum versions in the BR’s are not from the upstream tarball. It would be best to drop the version numbers unless there is a specific need. See also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies, which states: Versioned dependencies (build-time or runtime) SHOULD ONLY be used when actually necessary to guarantee that the proper version of a package is present. If a versioned dependency would be satisfied by a version present in three previous Fedora releases then the then a versioned dependency is not needed and a regular unversioned dependency SHOULD be used instead. - The above two issues also apply to Requires: (python3dist(requests) >= 2.21.0) Requires: (python3dist(six) >= 1.13.0) and normally I would say to just remove these two lines, as Python runtime dependencies are automatically generated. However, the entries are not getting picked up from install_requires in setup.py for reasons I do not understand, so I guess you do need: Requires: python3dist(requests) Requires: python3dist(six) However, you need to move these lines under %package -n python3-%{pypi_name} for it to accomplish anything. - The python_provide macro is obsolete. Please remove the line %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} If you are building for Fedora 32, you may use %py_provides instead. Otherwise, just drop it. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro - The default defattr line “%defattr(-,root,root)” is long-obsolete and should be removed. See https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/77. - Modern specs should not “rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT”. Please remove the %clean section. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections. - It is unusual for Python packages to Provide: the name of the Python module without the python*- prefix, except in cases where it is required for historical compatibility. Please remove: Provides: %{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release} - Please add “%doc CHANGELOG.rst” in %files. - The changelog entry is missing the release number: * Fri Jan 15 2021 Stephen Coady <scoady@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2.19.202 should be * Fri Jan 15 2021 Stephen Coady <scoady@xxxxxxxxxx> - 2.19.202-1 - rpmlint says: python3-docplex.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py 644 /usr/bin/python Please remove the spurious shebang line in %prep, after calling %setup: sed -r -i '1{/^#!/d}' docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py - rpmlint says: python3-docplex.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-docplex/README.rst Please convert from Windows CRNL to NL line termination by adding BuildRequires: dos2unix and adding, in %prep after calling %setup: dos2unix README.rst - rpmlint says: python-docplex.src:32: W: setup-not-quiet You should add the -q argument to the %setup macro. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1917902-python- docplex/licensecheck.txt Should be “ASL 2.0”, not “Apache 2.0”. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Missing release. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. Explicit Python Requires should be dropped; let the dependency generator do its job. [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: 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]: 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 (except as otherwise noted) [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: [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [-]: 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). [x]: 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. Upstream provides no tests. [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]: 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-docplex-2.19.202-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-docplex-2.19.202-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-docplex.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-docplex.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 python3-docplex.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-docplex.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py python3-docplex.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-docplex/README.rst python-docplex.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-docplex.src: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 python-docplex.src:32: W: setup-not-quiet 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-docplex.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-docplex.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache 2.0 python3-docplex.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py 644 /usr/bin/python python3-docplex.noarch: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/docplex/mp/callbacks/cb_mixin.py python3-docplex.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-docplex/README.rst 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/docplex/docplex-2.19.202.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2b606dc645f99feae67dfc528620dddc773ecef5d59bcaeae68bba601f25162b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2b606dc645f99feae67dfc528620dddc773ecef5d59bcaeae68bba601f25162b Requires -------- python3-docplex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-docplex: docplex python-docplex python3-docplex python3.9-docplex python3.9dist(docplex) python3dist(docplex) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1917902 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Haskell, 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
