https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024924 --- Comment #4 from Hafsat <hafsatajia@xxxxxxxxx> --- Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. This is not an official review, I am a new packager and I need a sponsor. A couple of questions I have, 1) What does it mean that "License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed."I have checked and it's license is MIT, which is open source but I am not sure about the installation being referred to here. 2) I am not sure how to determine if a package has a bundled library, so I put a "?" there 3)How do I check that development files are in a -devel package? 4) I can see the in %doc, there is READ.rst, HISTORY.rst and CONTRIBUTING.rst and I don't think these are related to anything runtime but there is "%{_bindir}/inspyred" and I do not know if and how this affects no 51 of the review 5) Why is the %{forgeurl} and %{forgesource} in the source0 and url? 6) I don't understand no 63, how to check if large documentation goes in a -doc subpackage? 7) How do I check if the source package includes the text of the License? Is that the licensecheck.txt? Also didn't see %license in the spec file or is the license field, above the URL? 8) How can you check if the package functions as described? 9) How can I verify the sources with gpgverify? 10) How do I check if Python eggs downloaded any dependencies during the build process? 11) It has %check but the build.log contains no information about tests carried out, so how do I know if the tests have been passed? DO I run a fedpkg mockbuild? I ran the rpmlint on the srpm and it passed, I am not sure if that matters? I tried to do an intensive review so I have a better idea of other reviews....thank you for the platform. ===== 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* [generated file]". 95 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2024924-python- inspyred/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: 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 [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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: [?]: 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. []: 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-inspyred [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: 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. [?]: 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/aarongarrett/inspyred/archive/d5976ab503cc9d51c6f586cbb7bb601a38c01128/inspyred-d5976ab503cc9d51c6f586cbb7bb601a38c01128.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b67820283253998a9c7544b7fb54a5505efe6c673cae0d4b53b105187725a37d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b67820283253998a9c7544b7fb54a5505efe6c673cae0d4b53b105187725a37d Requires -------- python3-inspyred (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(click) python-inspyred-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-inspyred: python-inspyred python3-inspyred python3.10-inspyred python3.10dist(inspyred) python3dist(inspyred) python-inspyred-doc: python-inspyred-doc Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2024924-python-inspyred/srpm/python-inspyred.spec 2021-11-19 16:16:20.481337236 +0100 +++ /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2024924-python-inspyred/srpm-unpacked/python-inspyred.spec 2021-11-19 15:11:42.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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: inspyred is a free, open source framework for creating biologically-inspired @@ -63,3 +72,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 19 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 1.0.1-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Fri Nov 19 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 1.0.1-1 +- feat: init Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2024924 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Ocaml, Java, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity 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=2024924 _______________________________________________ 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
