https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009827 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(aniketpradhan1999 | |@gmail.com) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - It was recently pointed out that Sphinx-generated HTML documentation contains bundled and pre-minified JavaScript that is very difficult to package in strict compliance with the relevant guidelines, and that even if these can be packaged successfully, they should contribute to the License of the -doc subpackage. Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and the packaging mailing list thread https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for detailed discussion. At this time, it seems you have two reasonable choices: * The Sphinx-generated PDF documentation *may* be acceptable. (There is an open discussion on whether embedded fonts in PDFs should be considered a problem.) For the time being, I’ve mostly been switching my existing Sphinx-generated (and Doxygen-generated) documentation subpackages to PDFs rather than removing them altogether. Here’s an example of how that can be done: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-asyncpg/c/5596d0e7ac63b4c685cd73a991f0e5266759abe4?branch=rawhide * You could remove the -doc subpackage entirely, and refrain from packaging the documentation—a loss, in my opinion, but an easy solution. ===== 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", "BSD (3 clause)". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2009827-python-pybv/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. See notes about Sphinx HTML documentation in Issues. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See notes about Sphinx HTML documentation in Issues. [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-pybv [x]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [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-pybv-0.6.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-pybv-doc-0.6.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-pybv-0.6.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-pybv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US electrophysiology -> electrocardiography python3-pybv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhdr -> HDTV python3-pybv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmrk -> murk python3-pybv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eeg -> EEG, gee, reg python-pybv-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US electrophysiology -> electrocardiography python-pybv-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhdr -> HDTV python-pybv-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmrk -> murk python-pybv-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eeg -> EEG, gee, reg python-pybv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US electrophysiology -> electrocardiography python-pybv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vhdr -> HDTV python-pybv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmrk -> murk python-pybv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eeg -> EEG, gee, reg 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bids-standard/pybv/archive/v0.6.0/pybv-0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0d0e74479b4d71f928c4c91af8f075cdf66e793959425482da13e4a096f54523 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0d0e74479b4d71f928c4c91af8f075cdf66e793959425482da13e4a096f54523 Requires -------- python3-pybv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(numpy) python-pybv-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pybv: python-pybv python3-pybv python3.10-pybv python3.10dist(pybv) python3dist(pybv) python-pybv-doc: python-pybv-doc python3-pybv-doc python3.10-pybv-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2009827 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, R, PHP 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009827 _______________________________________________ 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
