https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018825 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The package’s dependencies are not specified in setup.py, but they should be. Not only does this prevent generating BuildRequires (as you noted), but it means automatic generation of the runtime dependencies does not work. I filed a PR upstream to fix this. Now, instead of %generate_buildrequires # No setup.cfg, tox.ini or pyproject.toml echo 'python3dist(pip)' echo 'python3dist(packaging)' echo 'python3dist(setuptools)' echo 'python3dist(wheel)' echo 'python3dist(numpy)' echo 'python3dist(scipy)' echo 'python3dist(scikit-learn)' echo 'python3dist(pandas)' you can add: # Encode dependencies in setup.py, and add matplotlib # https://github.com/VictorPelaez/coral-reef-optimization-algorithm/pull/58 # # This patch file touches requirements.txt, which is not included in the # PyPI source archive, so we use a modified version that omits the changes # to requirements.txt. Patch0: 58-pypi.patch add the “-p1” argument to %autosetup, and then just write: %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -r (I will attach the modified patch file to this review.) - This is good: # add LICENSE from upstream -- pypi version does not contain license text Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/VictorPelaez/coral-reef-optimization-algorithm/master/LICENSE.txt but I think a URL with a tag for the exact version, or (since that is lacking here) a particular commit would be better, since the file won’t change later. Source1: %{url}/raw/cb11d529acd929c488bb433f8bb87f5d1988d923/LICENSE.txt Please add a comment with a link to my PR, # Add LICENSE.txt to metadata # https://github.com/VictorPelaez/coral-reef-optimization-algorithm/pull/60 which would fix the issue for future releases. There is no use applying it as a patch, since the license file is already missing. - Upstream mistakenly installs the examples directly under site-packages. I have sent a PR upstream to correct this. # Do not install “examples” as a top-level package # https://github.com/VictorPelaez/coral-reef-optimization-algorithm/pull/59 Patch1: %{url}/pull/59.patch Remove this, as it does nothing useful after the wheel is built: rm -rf examples/ and of course, remove %{python3_sitelib}/examples/ from the %files section. It would be reasonable to install them as documentation instead: %doc examples - Technically, the version of %pypi_source without arguments is deprecated (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_convenience_macros), so instead of Source0: %pypi_source you should write Source0: %{pypi_source %{pypi_name}} - When using the pyproject-rpm-macros, this is not necessary: rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info - Several installed files have a pair of problems: they have a shebang line despite not being executable, and they have “/usr/bin/env …” in their shebangs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines). python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/cro/cro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/cro/larvaemutation.py 644 /usr/bin/env python For these two, you should just remove the shebangs in %prep: # Remove shebangs from modules in site-packages. These are not executable # in the source tarball, and lack “script-like” content. The # find-then-modify pattern keeps us from discarding mtimes on sources that # do not need modification. find cro -type f -exec \ gawk '/^#!/ { print FILENAME }; { nextfile }' '{}' '+' | xargs -r -t sed -r -i '1{/^#!/d}' python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/examples/example_advanced.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/examples/example_basic.py 644 /usr/bin/env python You could give these the same treatment, but since they are script-like and will no longer be installed in site-packages, you could also choose to make them executable and fix the shebangs, also in %prep: chmod -v a+x examples/example_*.py %py3_shebang_fix examples ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2018825-python-cro/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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 noted) [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 (except as noted) [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. See Issues; I submitted a PR. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). Dependencies are not generated because they are not in install_requires upstream; see Issues. [!]: Package functions as described. Tests pass, but dependencies are missing. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. License file is a separate source, but taken from upstream git. [-]: 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-cro-0.0.5.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-cro-0.0.5.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-cro.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/cro/cro.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/cro/larvaemutation.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/examples/example_advanced.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cro.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/examples/example_basic.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-cro.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metaheuristic -> meta heuristic, meta-heuristic, heuristics 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/VictorPelaez/coral-reef-optimization-algorithm/master/LICENSE.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : de73f284e92b36876e58ca486f87de9198cbdbed3035e378d38c45c672401b15 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : de73f284e92b36876e58ca486f87de9198cbdbed3035e378d38c45c672401b15 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/cro/cro-0.0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88f058946ff2594439afc68f01553c6beb2777fe511bca65a70bb1447470295d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88f058946ff2594439afc68f01553c6beb2777fe511bca65a70bb1447470295d Requires -------- python3-cro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-cro: python-cro python3-cro python3.10-cro python3.10dist(cro) python3dist(cro) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, R, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++ 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=2018825 _______________________________________________ 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
