https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005132 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec) - Some issues with Sphinx-generated HTML documentation regarding bundled and minified web assets have been identified that make it unsuitable for packaging (even though there is a long history of doing so in Fedora). See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for details and discussion. Given this, you have two reasonable options: - Don’t package the Sphinx-generated documentation at all - Build a PDF, which is probably acceptable, rather than HTML. If you want to go with PDF documentation, let me know and I’ll be happy to make and upload a version of the spec that builds it. You can look at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-engineio/blob/rawhide/f/python-engineio.spec for an example. - While you are not running the tests (waiting for an upstream release with pytest instead of nose), you must run a “smoke test” that simply imports the public API modules (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests). The easiest way to do this is to change %pyproject_buildrequires %{?with_tests:-r} to %pyproject_buildrequires -r and %if %{with tests} %{pytest} # or %%{tox} %endif to %if %{with tests} %{pytest} # or %%{tox} %else %pyproject_check_import %endif (but note that you will have to wait for the latest versions of pyproject-rpm-macros and python-rpm-macros to reach stable releases before building for F35 and older), or if you don’t want to wait: to %if %{with tests} %{pytest} # or %%{tox} %else %py3_check_import hdf5storage %endif (given that in this case the top-level __init__.py imports everything else). ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2005132-python-hdf5storage/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Ok except for Sphinx HTML documentation [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. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-hdf5storage [?]: 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. [!]: %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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/frejanordsiek/hdf5storage/archive/0.1.18/hdf5storage-0.1.18.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ce24b6267d1f59964b116cfa604c3142a1c9d7ac3a4704bca84963d820265e58 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ce24b6267d1f59964b116cfa604c3142a1c9d7ac3a4704bca84963d820265e58 Requires -------- python3-hdf5storage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(h5py) python3.10dist(numpy) python-hdf5storage-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-hdf5storage: python-hdf5storage python3-hdf5storage python3.10-hdf5storage python3.10dist(hdf5storage) python3dist(hdf5storage) python-hdf5storage-doc: python-hdf5storage-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005132 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, Java 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: 4 python-hdf5storage.spec:96: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog python-hdf5storage.spec:96: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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=2005132 _______________________________________________ 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
