https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981997 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Looks very good. A few minor issues worth looking into: - licensecheck reports these. Does the license need to say "BSD and MIT"? (I thought this sort of scenario was documented somewhere but I can't seem to find the page at the moment.) --- BSD (3 clause) -------------- pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3/LICENSE MIT License ----------- pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3/pydata_sphinx_theme/static/css/index.c5995385ac14fb8791e8eb36b4908be2.css pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3/pydata_sphinx_theme/static/js/index.1c5a1a01449ed65a7b51.js --- - these two are from the bundled bootstrap and "kickass" libraries that seem to be bundled. - it bundles fontawesome in pydata_sphinx_theme/static/vendor/fontawesome/5.13.0/ which also has it's own license(s) and may need a look I think we'll also need to document these as bundled in the spec. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^ Noted above. ===== 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", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "MIT License". 155 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1981997-python-pydata-sphinx-theme/1981997-python-pydata- sphinx-theme/licensecheck.txt ^ Noteda above [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 10240 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]: 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. [-]: 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: [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ noted above, bundles fontawesome [-]: 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-pydata-sphinx-theme [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-pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-pydata-sphinx-theme-doc-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-pydata-sphinx-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropdown -> drop down, drop-down, drown python3-pydata-sphinx-theme.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opticon -> option, opt icon, opt-icon python3-pydata-sphinx-theme.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pydata_sphinx_theme/docs-sidebar.html python-pydata-sphinx-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dropdown -> drop down, drop-down, drown python-pydata-sphinx-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opticon -> option, opt icon, opt-icon python-pydata-sphinx-theme.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fontawesome -> font awesome, font-awesome, awesomeness 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. ^ All OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ? ^ Hrm, not sure what's going on here. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pydata/pydata-sphinx-theme/archive/v0.6.3/pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c5e33c92ab3524327b7f07b46768d4765124101ea6112379755cc72e050b49d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c5e33c92ab3524327b7f07b46768d4765124101ea6112379755cc72e050b49d8 Requires -------- python3-pydata-sphinx-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.10dist(docutils) python3.10dist(sphinx) python-pydata-sphinx-theme-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pydata-sphinx-theme: python-pydata-sphinx-theme python3-pydata-sphinx-theme python3.10-pydata-sphinx-theme python3.10dist(pydata-sphinx-theme) python3dist(pydata-sphinx-theme) python-pydata-sphinx-theme-doc: python-pydata-sphinx-theme-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1981997 -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --enablerepo=local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, Ocaml 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
