https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(vanessaigwe1@gmai |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |l.com) |in.net) --- Comment #9 from Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > 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 Thank you very much for the review @code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I would love to create the man page and PDF documentation. Though I'm not familiar with how to go about this, I am very much willing to learn. I will also add the CHANGES.txt to the package documentation as suggested in the review >From your explanation of the %py3_check_import glymurI bit, I have a better understanding of its use case and I will remove it from the spec file as it isn't relevant. Thank you very much :)) -- 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=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
