https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934194 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dcavalca@xxxxxx) --- Comment #2 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - License is not just MIT. See LICENSE file. The overall license should be MIT and (MIT and Python) and ASL 2.0. You must then add a comment above the License field explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. Since the upstream LICENSE file actually does this (first time I’ve ever seen that!) you could just reference it, or copy the relevant section. - It would be nice (but not mandatory) to build the docs in a -doc subpackage. The PyPI tarball is missing some of the documentation build files, but I think you could do it if you switched to the GitHub tarball. - For the tests you remove due to missing dependencies, I think you should note which tests are removed for which dependencies, so there is a chance of adding them back if the dependencies become available in the future. In some cases, like test_codemod_cli.py, it is not obvious that there really is a dependency problem. - In general, when you remove or disable a test, it would be nice to have a rationale. Something like “See upstream bug https://example.com/issues/1000000”; or “This test requires Internet access” or at least “I tried foo and bar but I can’t report this upstream unless I figure out baz”. This makes it much more likely that tests will be added back in when they are no longer broken. For example, the failure in test_codegen_clean.py is https://github.com/Instagram/LibCST/issues/304. Some of the others are discussed in https://github.com/Instagram/LibCST/issues/331. Another is https://github.com/Instagram/LibCST/issues/305. - Testing by “setup.py test” is deprecated, and a message is printed to that effect. Consider %{__python3} -m unittest -v instead. Or add a BR on pytest, and use the %pytest 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* Expat License", "Expat License Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "Expat License [generated file]". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1934194-python-libcst/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as 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 [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). [?]: 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-libcst-0.3.17-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-libcst-0.3.17-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespaces -> white spaces, white-spaces, whites paces python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactoring -> re factoring, re-factoring, factorizing python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linters -> liners, liters, inters python-libcst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespaces -> white spaces, white-spaces, whites paces python-libcst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactoring -> re factoring, re-factoring, factorizing python-libcst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codemod -> code mod, code-mod, commode python-libcst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linters -> liners, liters, inters 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespaces -> white spaces, white-spaces, whites paces python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactoring -> re factoring, re-factoring, factorizing python3-libcst.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linters -> liners, liters, inters 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/libcst/libcst-0.3.17.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2766671c107263daa3fc34e39d55134a6fe253701564d7670586f30eee2c201c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2766671c107263daa3fc34e39d55134a6fe253701564d7670586f30eee2c201c Requires -------- python3-libcst (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(pyyaml) python3.9dist(typing-extensions) python3.9dist(typing-inspect) Provides -------- python3-libcst: python-libcst python3-libcst python3.9-libcst python3.9dist(libcst) python3dist(libcst) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1934194 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Ruby, Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, R, Ocaml, Java 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
