https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930948 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Since I no longer remeber anything from thsi review :D I've decided to check my previous concerns one by one. Inlined: (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > The license tag is "License: GPLv2 and MIT", I believe it should be > "License: GPLv2+ and GPLv2 and MIT". OK. > It appears that some packages can be installed without the %license file > installed. Notably python-%{pkgname}-common, python-%{pkgname}-bash and > python-%{pkgname}-examples. OK. > Real rpmlint issues: > > python3-avocado.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/avocado/core/nrunner.py 644 /usr/bin/env > python3 > > python3-avocado.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst docs/source/quickstart/index.rst > See yourself: > $ file /usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst > /usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst: broken symbolic link to > docs/source/quickstart/index.rst > > python-avocado.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: > Thu Feb 19 2021 Merlin Mathesius <mmathesi@xxxxxxxxxx> - 82.0-2 OK. > Group tag is not supposed to be used: > Group: Development/Tools OK. > %{python_provide} SHOULD not be used. Remove it or replace with %py_provides > if appropriate. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_the_py_provides_macro OK. > The %check sections repeatedly runs `%{__python3} setup.py develop --user`. > This can backfire for builds outside of mock. Is does not appear to be > necessary. OK. > I also suggest to "hide" the section in the conditional, so it is not > present in build.log when built without tests. OK. > Some packages have duplicated and/or suspicious requires: > > python3-avocado: > ... > python3-pycdlib -> this is missing in upstream metadata, why is it > required? This one is still present. All the other manual requires on Python packages seem to be dropped. My question stands: Why is this required and not part of upstream metadata? > Suggestions: > ============ > > Switch to HTTPS URL: > URL: http://avocado-framework.github.io/ OK. > Update/remove old conditionals like: > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 30 || 0%{?rhel} > %if (0%{?fedora} && 0%{?fedora} < 29) || 0%{?rhel} OK. > Replace %{__make} with %make_build: > %{__make} man -> %make_build man OK. > Replace %{__python3} with %{python3}. OK. > Replace %{__rm}, %{__mv}, %{__ln_s}, %{__mkdir}, %{__cp} etc. with rm, mv, > ln -s, mkdir, cp etc. OK. > Opinionated suggestion: The spec file somewhat arbitrarily(?) uses > "avacado", "%{srcname}" and "%{pkgname}". I'd stick to "avocado" for better > readability, I don't expect the name of the project to be updated so often > to justify this complexity. OK. Generally, all concerns except python3-pycdlib were fixed (and that is not a blocker). I'm going to assume that no new problems were introduced. All the packages built in your copr are installable. Hence, APPROVED. -- 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
