https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010053 --- Comment #8 from Shane Allcroft <shaneallcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (completed review on the updated files) *See Issues -- tldr looks great, probably ready for approval Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file at URL differs from the spec file in the srpm. ^^^^^ I have a feeling this is probably a non-issue, since this check falls into the "EXTRA items" category rather than the MUST or SHOULD. If this is in fact not an issue, this packaging is ready for approval :+1: Otherwise, this should be addressed, and then I'll re-review. The diff can be inspected down near the bottom of this review. ===== 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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [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. 'python-sphinxemoji.src: W: strange-permission python-sphinxemoji.spec 600' ^^^^^ This is the most concerning line of the rpmlint feedback, and a permission of 600 is likely not harmful in the context of the spec file, so I don't think this is an issue: [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. [-]: 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. [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. [x]: 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: [!]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: strange-permission python-sphinxemoji.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/shaneallcroft/software_source/fedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm/python-sphinxemoji.spec 2021-11-05 08:26:26.110032017 -0400 +++ /home/shaneallcroft/software_source/fedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm-unpacked/python-sphinxemoji.spec 2021-11-05 03:10:43.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + 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 + %global _description %{expand: An extension to use emoji codes in your Sphinx documentation.} @@ -45,3 +54,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 05 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 0.2.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Sun Oct 03 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 0.1.9-1 +- feat: init Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2010053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Java, R, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++ 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=2010053 _______________________________________________ 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
