https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2014853 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi |in.net) |ster.eu) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated - The license/copyright statements in the code include the “or any later version” language, so the License field should be “GPLv3+” instead of “GPLv3”. - Most of the source file headers include: # This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and # permission notice (restored, based on setup.py file from # https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py): # # Copyright (C) 2007-2013 by Michal Migurski and other contributors # License: BSD It’s correct to consider these files GPLv3+ under the “effective license” concept (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F). However, the BSD license requires the license and copyright text to be reproduced in all derivative works, and that isn’t satisfied here. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text. The original source of the BSD-licensed code is https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py/tree/master/ModestMaps. Even there, the BSD license is in the metadata (setup.py) but there is no full license text/copyright statement. This is challenging because there are many different specific licenses in the BSD family. Please read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text carefully to understand your options. You should contact Michael Migurski (https://github.com/migurski) and try to get him to commit to a particular BSD license text for https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py. Hopefully, he will respond, and you can use that as an additional license file for this package, and also submit it for inclusion in https://github.com/wrobell/geotiler. If all of that fails, the guidelines allow you to choose to guess at the proper license text and include that. They do not allow you to package the software without the license text for licenses that require it. All of this is unpleasant, but seems to be necessary. - In this case, pyproject-rpm-macros properly marks the COPYING file in dist-info as a license file, so you may, if you like, drop %license COPYING from the base package (not the -doc subpackage). You can verify this with rpm -qL -p /path/to/python3-geotiler[…].rpm which is a good idea, as there exist some Python packages where this does not work. You can also just leave it as it is; there is no harm in having two copies of the COPYING file. - This is unnecessary when using pyproject-rpm-macros: rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info - It’s nice, although not mandatory, to write %{python3} -m pytest as %pytest which sets some additional environment variables. - As far as I can tell, git is not used to apply the patch, and this is not needed: # For the patch BuildRequires: git-core - Some difficult issues with minified and bundled JavaScript and web assets in Sphinx-generated HTML documentation have been recently pointed out. These seem to make Sphinx HTML documentation unsuitable for packaging. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for discussion. Your best options are either to build the Sphinx documentation in PDF format (which is probably acceptable) instead of HTML, or to drop the documentation altogether (a regrettable loss). If you want to switch to PDF documentation, the following will work. Change #For documentation BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme} to #For documentation BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme} BuildRequires: python3-sphinx-latex BuildRequires: latexmk #For rendered image placeholders BuildRequires: ImageMagick BuildRequires: font(liberationsans) and change PYTHONPATH=${PWD} sphinx-build-3 doc/ html rm -rf docs/_build/html/{.doctrees,.buildinfo} -vf to # Insert placeholders for documentation sample images that are normally # generated by downloading (variously-licensed) data from the Internet in the # top-level Makefile. convert -size 512x512 xc:gray -font 'Liberation-Sans-Bold-Italic' \ -pointsize 48 -fill black -gravity center -annotate +0+0 \ 'Rendered image\nnot available' doc/map-osm.png cp -p doc/map-osm.png doc/map-stamen-toner.png cp -p doc/map-osm.png doc/map-bluemarble.png convert -size 1920x1080 xc:gray -font 'Liberation-Sans-Bold-Italic' \ -pointsize 96 -fill black -gravity center -annotate +0+0 \ 'Rendered image\nnot available' doc/map-path.png PYTHONPATH="${PWD}" sphinx-build -b latex doc _latex %{?_smp_mflags} %make_build -C _latex The missing PNGs were a problem with the HTML documentation, but their absence actually breaks the PDF build, so we must make placeholders. Finally, change %doc html to %doc _latex/geotiler.pdf - Man pages are always desired for command-line tools (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). If you are willing to maintain them (update them if the command-line options change upstream), I am happy to contribute a set of man pages hand-written in groff_man(7) format based on the tools’ --help output. - The tests are disabled in the submitted spec file. Change: %pyproject_buildrequires -r to %pyproject_buildrequires -r %{?with_tests:-x tests} and change %if %{with tests} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} %endif to %if %{with tests} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist numpy} %endif and you should be able to re-enable them. ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2014853-python-geotiler/licensecheck.txt [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 (except as mentioned) [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. BSD license applies to some sources; this requires license text in some form. [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-geotiler [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. Tests are disabled, but can be re-enabled. See Issues. [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-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-geotiler-doc-0.14.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-fetch python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-lint python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-route python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.buildinfo python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.doctrees python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.doctrees 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/geotiler/geotiler-0.14.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf Requires -------- python3-geotiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(aiohttp) python3.10dist(cytoolz) python3.10dist(pillow) python-geotiler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-geotiler: python-geotiler python3-geotiler python3.10-geotiler python3.10dist(geotiler) python3dist(geotiler) python-geotiler-doc: python-geotiler-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2014853 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl, C/C++, R 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=2014853 _______________________________________________ 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
