https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(vanessaigwe1@gmai |in.net) |l.com) --- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. This is fedora-review not understanding rpmautospec. No change is required. - I think the changelog CHANGES.txt should also be packaged as documentation alongside README.md. This is a minor issue, and I won’t block approval on it. - A man page is always desired for a command-line tool (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages). python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump If you’re willing to maintain it (update it if the command-line interface changes upstream), I’m happy to contribute a brief man page for jp2dump based on its --help output. If you haven’t used the text-based groff_man(7) format before, it’s a little obscure and terse, but relatively easy to modify. You’re not *required* to add a man page, so if you don’t want to do this then just let me know and I will approve the package as-is. Notes (no change required): =========================== - The %%py3_check_import is primarily designed for cases where you cannot run the upstream test suite—perhaps because it does not exist, it requires unpackaged or unpackageable dependencies, or it downloads data from the Internet and that data cannot easily be included as an additional Source. Since you are running the tests, you may remove %py3_check_import glymur although there is no harm in leaving it in. - While there are issues with Sphinx-generated HTML documentation (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555), packaging a PDF version is probably OK. Let me know if you want to try to package the documentation this way; I have quite a few examples I can point to. I’m happy to send a PR to add it once the package is in Rawhide—again, if you want to go this way. You are not required to package the Sphinx documentation, and leaving it out is also a reasonable choice. ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt CC0-licensed files in ci/ are not installed and do not contribute to the build. [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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). [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Differences appear due to rpmautospec only. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.noarch.rpm python-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.src.rpm python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1 Requires -------- python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(lxml) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(setuptools) Provides -------- python3-glymur: python-glymur python3-glymur python3.10-glymur python3.10dist(glymur) python3dist(glymur) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/python-glymur.spec 2021-10-27 15:40:48.150320275 -0400 +++ /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-unpacked/python-glymur.spec 2021-10-25 12:58:54.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 6; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-glymur Version: 0.9.4 @@ -55,3 +64,19 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog \ No newline at end of file +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-6 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-5 +- updated spec file + +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-4 +- fresh mockbuild for review + +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-3 +- sending for review + +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-2 +- rpm package created successfully + +* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.9.4-1 +- building process ... Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693 _______________________________________________ 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
