https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925812 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel You have a pkgconfig(python3), so the need for python3-devel should be covered. It is very unconventional for a Python package to specify the Python BR this way—but I think it is technically correct. You may leave it unchanged if you prefer it this way. - In general, I also noticed that all of your BRs use pkgconfig(), but the build system does not use pkg-config/pkgconf to find dependencies. As far as I can tell, the Guidelines do not say you can do this. They say you SHOULD use pkgconfig() instead of BR: *-devel when pkg-config IS used, but not that you SHOULD NOT when it IS NOT. So this is unconventional but, I think, perfectly acceptable. - The %python_provide macro should not be used on Fedora. Please replace: %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{module}} with %if 0%{?epel} && 0%{?epel} < 9 %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{module}} %endif %if 0%{?fedora} == 32 %py_provides python3-%{module} %endif assuming you plan to package for Fedora 32 and EPEL8. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro. You may omit the “%if 0%{?fedora} == 32” conditional if you like; I find it serves as a reminder to remove the unnecessary macro after Fedora 32 EOL. - It is possible to run the tests, so you should do so. Add a BR on make, and then add: %check export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch} %make_build check PYTHON=%{__python3} RUNENV='' - It would be nice to build the documentation. All you have to do is make sure there is a BR on make, add a BR on python3dist(sphinx), and add %make_build apidoc in the %build section after %py3_build. Then add a noarch -doc subpackage, give it its own copy of the %license COPYING file, and move %doc README CONTRIBUTING.md example?.py to it, adding the API documentation, like %doc README CONTRIBUTING.md example?.py api-doc ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. This is the compiled Python module directly under the %python3_sitearch directory, which is exactly where it belongs. There is no problem. 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1925812-python-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch correctly justified. Remember to file an RHBZ issue blocking F-ExcludeArch-x86 for this package, separate from and blocked by the one for tkrzw, once this package is approved. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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: 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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-tkrzw [?]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ExcludeArch properly justified [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. It is possible to run the tests, so you should do so. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-tkrzw-0.1.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm python-tkrzw-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm python-tkrzw-0.1.4-1.fc35.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-tkrzw: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/tkrzw.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg-python/tkrzw-python-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832 Requires -------- python3-tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-tkrzw: python-tkrzw python3-tkrzw python3-tkrzw(x86-64) python3.9-tkrzw python3.9dist(tkrzw) python3dist(tkrzw) python-tkrzw-debugsource: python-tkrzw-debugsource python-tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925812 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, C/C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
