https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017610 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(vanessaigwe1@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec. - Use of gittag macro seems overcomplicated. Instead of %global gittag 0.4.2 Name: python-git-changelog Version: 0.4.2 Release: %autorelease Summary: Automatic Changelog generator using Jinja2 templates License: ISC URL: https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog Source0: https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog/archive/%{gittag}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz […] %prep %autosetup -n git-changelog-%{gittag} please consider Name: python-git-changelog Version: 0.4.2 Release: %autorelease Summary: Automatic Changelog generator using Jinja2 templates License: ISC URL: https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog Source0: https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz […] %prep %autosetup -n git-changelog-%{version} so that you don’t have to try to keep the version number updated and matching in two places. No change is required for approval, but I think the simplification makes sense. (You could use the “forge” macros here, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_tag_example, but that’s arguably excessive given how easy it is to construct a GitHub tag archive URL.) If you like, you could even write the source URL as: URL: https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz but writing out the whole thing is fine too. - The man page contains text about info pages that doesn’t seem to be correct: .SH "SEE ALSO" The full documentation for .B git-changelog is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If the .B info and .B git-changelog programs are properly installed at your site, the command .IP .B info git-changelog .PP should give you access to the complete manual. It looks like you started with help2man and then possibly modified the result by hand. That’s a fine approach for a man page, but you should know that help2man is optimized for other GNU projects, which almost all provide info pages, whereas most non-GNU projects don’t. You can keep help2man from generating it by passing the “--no-info” option. If you aren’t modifying the help2man output, it makes sense to BuildRequire: help2man and generate the man page during %build rather than adding it as a source. Since help2man makes some weird choices (putting “man page for BLAH” where a useful short description should be, putting the usage under DESCRIPTION under SYNOPSIS, …) I’ll manually tidy up the current man page and upload the result for your review. - I should have noted this before: this package calls “git config” and “git log” at runtime via subprocess, so you should add a dependency: %package -n python3-git-changelog Summary: %{summary} Requires: git-core %description -n python3-git-changelog %_description ===== 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: "*No copyright* ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "ISC License". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2017610-python-git- changelog/20211108/2017610-python-git-changelog/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 30720 bytes in 5 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. [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: [!]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pawamoy/git-changelog/archive/0.4.2/python-git-changelog-0.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5875c6d8bba8453d0c3d9c3fc9424b7100a70ba81b27585d1db5cab48d49dd6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5875c6d8bba8453d0c3d9c3fc9424b7100a70ba81b27585d1db5cab48d49dd6 Requires -------- python3-git-changelog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(jinja2) Provides -------- python3-git-changelog: python-git-changelog python3-git-changelog python3.10-git-changelog python3.10dist(git-changelog) python3dist(git-changelog) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2017610-python-git-changelog/20211108/2017610-python-git-changelog/srpm/python-git-changelog.spec 2021-11-08 09:24:26.046314640 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/2017610-python-git-changelog/20211108/2017610-python-git-changelog/srpm-unpacked/python-git-changelog.spec 2021-11-08 03:53:01.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 7; + 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 gittag 0.4.2 Name: python-git-changelog @@ -59,3 +68,22 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog \ No newline at end of file +* Mon Nov 08 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-7 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Tue Nov 02 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-6 +- Added man-page to package + +* Tue Nov 02 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-5 +- Added CHANGELOG.md to package docs + +* Wed Oct 27 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-4 +- mockbuild on f36 + +* Wed Oct 27 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-3 +- README added + +* Wed Oct 27 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-2 +- ready for review + +* Tue Oct 26 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.2-1 +- mockbuild test Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2017610 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, R, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 python-git-changelog.src: W: strange-permission python-git-changelog.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s -- 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=2017610 _______________________________________________ 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
