https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917528 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(aviso@rockhopper. | |net) --- Comment #3 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Thanks for packaging this for Fedora. It is a clean package with only a few small nit-picks, plus some EPEL-isms that don’t belong in a Fedora-only spec file. Review follows: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - rpmlint says: python3-prefixed.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes. python-prefixed.src: E: description-line-too-long C float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes. Consider: %global desc %{expand: Prefixed provides an alternative implementation of the built-in float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes.} Here I have broken the too-long line, and also used the %expand macro to save you from having to add backslashes for explicit line continuation. You may then choose to put the macro on the same line like: %description %{desc} if you don’t want a leading blank line, but either way is fine. - The python_provide macro is obsolete and should not be used in Fedora. Since you are not packaging for Fedora 32, you do not even need its replacement, %py_provides. Just remove it completely. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro. If you change your mind later about packaging for EPEL, you can guard the macro with conditionals, like: %if 0%{?epel} && 0%{?epel} < 9 ... %endif or maintain an EPEL-specific spec file in the appropriate branch. - The %{python3_pkgversion} is an EPEL thing. Since you are not packaging for EPEL, replace every occurrence of %{python3_pkgversion} with 3. If you change your mind later about packaging for EPEL, you may add it back in, or maintain an EPEL-specific spec file in the appropriate branch. - Since you are packaging for Fedora, the BR’s should best be written as: BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) BuildRequires: python3-devel If you change your mind later about packaging for EPEL, you may switch to the current style, or maintain an EPEL-specific spec file in the appropriate branch. - The tests say: WARNING: Testing via this command is deprecated and will be removed in a future version. Users looking for a generic test entry point independent of test runner are encouraged to use tox. Consider adding BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) and invoking the tests with %check %pytest I think a new package should avoid deprecated interfaces when possible, so please do change this. - The glob in %files is acceptably restrictive (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_files_to_include): %{python3_sitelib}/prefixed* Most packagers use something like this, however: %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name} %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info (You are not required to change this if you do not want to.) - As an informational note, instead of defining %sum, you can just put what you want in Summary: and then refer to it as %{summary}. (You are not required to change this.) ===== 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: "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Mozilla Public License 2.0". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1917528-python-prefixed/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 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Should not use %python_provide on Fedora. [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. [x]: 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. [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: [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-prefixed-0.3.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-prefixed-0.3.2-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-prefixed.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes. python-prefixed.src: E: description-line-too-long C float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-prefixed.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C float which supports formatted output with SI (decimal) and IEC (binary) prefixes. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/prefixed/prefixed-0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca48277ba5fa8346dd4b760847da930c7b84416387c39e93affef086add2c029 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca48277ba5fa8346dd4b760847da930c7b84416387c39e93affef086add2c029 Requires -------- python3-prefixed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-prefixed: python-prefixed python3-prefixed python3.9-prefixed python3.9dist(prefixed) python3dist(prefixed) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1917528 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml 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
