https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934194 code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #9 from code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Thanks, looks good. Approved. Re-review below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies The spec file looks fine, and the Requires and Provides look similar to other Python packages. I am going to consider this a false positive. I think it might be due to the indirect dependency, via python3-metakernel-python, on python-jupyter-filesystem, which sounds like an unversioned Python package even though it is not. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat License Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "Expat License [generated file]". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1934194-python- libcst/20210304/1934194-python-libcst/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 20480 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. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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-libcst [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-libcst-0.3.17-4.fc35.noarch.rpm python-libcst-doc-0.3.17-4.fc35.noarch.rpm python-libcst-0.3.17-4.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-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C python-libcst documentation 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 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-libcst-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C python-libcst documentation 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Instagram/LibCST/archive/v0.3.17.tar.gz#/LibCST-0.3.17.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 830d6f8a9db4401ebb31e82a8f253c4d36d27f2ca0784ad21d19f5d6fe07eb8f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 830d6f8a9db4401ebb31e82a8f253c4d36d27f2ca0784ad21d19f5d6fe07eb8f Requires -------- python3-libcst (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(pyyaml) python3.9dist(typing-extensions) python3.9dist(typing-inspect) python-libcst-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-docs Provides -------- python3-libcst: python-libcst python3-libcst python3.9-libcst python3.9dist(libcst) python3dist(libcst) python-libcst-doc: python-libcst-doc 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: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, 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
