https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050889 Lumír Balhar <lbalhar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lbalhar@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |lbalhar@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Lumír Balhar <lbalhar@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Below are a few notes from me. I know that the package is under heavy development and I don't want to block you so Package is APPROVED. Notes from me: - Could you please add a command you used to generate the manpage to the comment in the specfile? Or, might this be automated during the build so it's not an extra manual step during updates? - You don't need to "cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' .", you can just use %{SOURCE1} in %install: install -t '%{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1' -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} - Version 0.14.0 is available upstream - You don't need this line: %dir %{python3_sitelib}/hatchling-%{version}.dist-info/license_files the license file stays in the directory and the whole dist-info belongs to the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2050889-python- hatchling/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 10240 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hatchling/hatchling-0.11.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9ccf90fed7e305d6ac092cd50cda7aa9754d380c426f867fc7312737f8ae0e07 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ccf90fed7e305d6ac092cd50cda7aa9754d380c426f867fc7312737f8ae0e07 Requires -------- python3-hatchling (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(editables) >= 0.2 with python3.10dist(editables) < 1) (python3.10dist(packaging) >= 21.3 with python3.10dist(packaging) < 22) (python3.10dist(pathspec) >= 0.9 with python3.10dist(pathspec) < 1) (python3.10dist(pluggy) >= 1 with python3.10dist(pluggy) < 1.1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(tomli) Provides -------- python3-hatchling: python-hatchling python3-hatchling python3.10-hatchling python3.10dist(hatchling) python3dist(hatchling) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2050889 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, 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=2050889 _______________________________________________ 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
