https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031721 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for packaging this. The package is APPROVED; however, please see and consider the remaining recommendations in the “Issues” section below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (OK: rpmautospec) - You should also ask upstream about adding an AppData file (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/), although you may package shybrid without one. The guidelines say you can add this downstream until/unless upstream adds it, but I find that isn’t very practical, since the description text and any screenshots need to be made available under one of a handful of extremely permissive licenses (CC0 and similar), and screenshots need to be hosted at publicly-available URLs. This is all pretty easy for upstreams but kind of hard to properly satisfy downstream. - I have a few nit-picks with the desktop file: [Desktop Entry] Name=Shybrid Comment=Shybrid Exec=shybrid Icon=shybrid Type=Application Categories=Graphics Since there is no icon installed (and no candidate image available in the upstream sources), the “Icon=shybrid” line should be removed. Since upstream refers to the program as SHYBRID in documentation, the Name should be “SHYBRID” instead of “Shybrid”. Since the Comment is meant to be a useful description for a tooltip, it should probably be the same thing you have in the spec file’s Summary field. Since the purpose of the program is not image processing, I think “Science” would be a much better category than “Graphics”. While the package can be approved and maintained indefinitely with a downstream desktop file like this, you should still ask upstream to provide a .desktop file and icon. They don’t have to be installed by setuptools; they just need to be in the sdist to be useful. ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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). [?]: 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) (OK: rpmautospec) [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://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/shybrid/shybrid-0.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24e11b5e8b875ca6bb438a34e1181f53f82be23bdc5dad4b58aa4065644ccaad Requires -------- shybrid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-matplotlib-qt5 python3.10dist(matplotlib) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(pyqt5) python3.10dist(pyyaml) python3.10dist(scipy) Provides -------- shybrid: application() application(shybrid.desktop) python3.10dist(shybrid) python3dist(shybrid) shybrid Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/srpm/shybrid.spec 2021-12-19 00:08:09.915901603 -0500 +++ /home/reviewer/2031721-shybrid/20211219/2031721-shybrid/srpm-unpacked/shybrid.spec 2021-12-18 13:46:29.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 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 + Name: shybrid Version: 0.4.3 @@ -54,3 +63,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog \ No newline at end of file +* Sat Dec 18 2021 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.3-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Dec 16 2021 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1@xxxxxxxxx> 0.4.3-1 +- initial build Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2031721 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, R, 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: 2 shybrid.src: W: strange-permission shybrid.spec 600 shybrid.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary shybrid 2 packages and 0 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=2031721 _______________________________________________ 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
