https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1973322 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(riehecky@xxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I’ll look at the latest submission when I have a chance—thanks! Meanwhile, this review applies to the original submission. Particularly, what do you think about python-jsonnet vs. jsonnet with a python3-jsonnet subpackage, since the Python package shares a version number and release tarball with, and ultimately builds from the same C++ sources as, the C and C++ bindings? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The extension build does not respect the build flags from the environment. In addition to violating the guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags), this means debugging symbols are not created and there is no useful -debuginfo package. The problem is that %py3_build sets CFLAGS and LDFLAGS but not CXXFLAGS or any of the other usual suspects. Just add %set_build_flags export CFLAGS="-fPIC ${CFLAGS}" export CXXFLAGS="-fPIC ${CXXFLAGS}" at the beginning of %build and it will do the right thing. - The MD5 copylib needs to be identified with an appropriate virtual Provides (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling). While the rules for using a bundled library only require following one of the options in the linked guidelines, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries_Virtual_Provides#cite_note-1 regarding known MD5 copylib implementations. You have one that does not match any of these, but this should be a reasonable way to deal with it: Provides: bundled(md5-thilo) (This would be best in the python3-jsonnet package rather than the base package, I think, although the Guidelines are not clear on this point.) - You have a bundled copy of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json. This is easy to unbundle downstream, so you should do so. Add: BuildRequires: json-devel # Dependency is a header-only library, so this is required by guidelines: BuildRequires: json-static See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries. In %prep, add: # Remove bundled copy of json (nlohmann_json) rm -rvf third_party/json In %build, after where you added %set_build_flags export CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fPIC" export CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS} -fPIC" add the necessary include path to CXXFLAGS: # Ensure the build can find the system copy of the json header-only library export CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS} -I%{_includedir}/nlohmann" - The bundled md5 copylib is under the RSA license (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/RSA), so you should have: # The entire source is ASL 2.0 except third_party/md5, which is RSA (and # third_party/json, which is MIT but is removed in %%prep) License: ASL 2.0 and RSA See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. - There are some tests in the GitHub release, but they are omitted from the PyPI tarball (https://github.com/google/jsonnet/blob/master/python/_jsonnet_test.py). It would be nice if you could use the GitHub tarball or otherwise include the tests, and run them in a %check section. (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites) However, this brings up another point: it seems like the PyPI source release is really just a part of the overall jsonnet release, and this would be better packaged as a “jsonnet” package that offers the C and C++ libraries as well as the python3-jsonnet subpackage. What do you think? I could help get the larger package working, if you are willing to maintain it. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. These are correctly-installed Python extension modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Expat License", "NTP License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973322-python-jsonnet/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as otherwise 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-jsonnet [?]: 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. [!]: %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]: 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-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python-jsonnet-debugsource-0.17.0-1.fc35.aarch64.rpm python-jsonnet-0.17.0-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-jsonnet.aarch64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting python-jsonnet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-jsonnet: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/_jsonnet.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/jsonnet/jsonnet-0.17.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 23ffcd4d03a10af7b20b53feee16627debe28345a4d7d5ed07881b7444553bfb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23ffcd4d03a10af7b20b53feee16627debe28345a4d7d5ed07881b7444553bfb Requires -------- python3-jsonnet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-jsonnet-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-jsonnet: python-jsonnet python3-jsonnet python3-jsonnet(aarch-64) python3.10-jsonnet python3.10dist(jsonnet) python3dist(jsonnet) python-jsonnet-debugsource: python-jsonnet-debugsource python-jsonnet-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973322 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, Haskell, 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
