https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056447 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Vanessa, Sorry it took so long. There were some fixes that were needed to get this to properly build on all architectures, so I was working on those. Here's the full review now. Please take a look and make the necessary changes (and of course, ping me if anything at all is unclear) Looks very good, but a few tweaks are needed before we can approve this one. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python3-NEAT : /usr/lib64/python3.10/site- packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/Ionchannels.h python3-NEAT : /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/NETC.h python3-NEAT : /usr/lib64/python3.10/site- packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/Synapses.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ^ I'm not sure if these files are used at runtime, but upstream does install them when installing the module using `pip`, so we'll keep them here as they are. So, this is a false positive. - Dist tag is present. ^ False positive, we're using rpmautospec here. - Some tweaks are needed to get the package to work correctly on all arches. I've submitted a PR to your spec here with the patch and spec updates to make this happen correctly: https://pagure.io/python-NEAT/pull-request/1 - I think we need to name the package python-neatdend to follow what the project is called on pypi. See my comment below for more information. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ^ False positive, it's the compiled Python module object: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/netsim.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 171 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2056447-python-NEAT/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ^ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./python3-NEAT-0.9.2-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neatdend-0.9.1.dist-info/LICENSE.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ I see the python naming guidelines suggest lowercase naming, so we should change this to `python-neat` instead of `python-NEAT` I guess. Next, I think we need to use the name the project uses on pypi, which is `neatdend`, so this should probably be `python-neatdend` to match that: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming https://pypi.org/project/neatdend/ What do you think, Vanessa? [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 4 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-NEAT [!]: Package functions as described. ^ We had disabled some tests, I looked into why they weren't running correctly. Opened a PR now with all tests being run and passing: https://pagure.io/python-NEAT/pull-request/1 [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. ^ Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=86173285 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. ^ Some were disabled. I've looked into why they weren't running and opened a PR with fixes: https://pagure.io/python-NEAT/pull-request/1 [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) ^ False positive---we're using rpmautospec so the spec/srpm differ a little. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- ======================================================== rpmlint session starts ======================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 2 python-NEAT.src: W: strange-permission python-NEAT.spec 600 python3-NEAT.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/channels/compilechannels 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-NEAT.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary compilechannels ^ There's no help text for this command from the looks of it, so let's leave it. python-NEAT.spec:32: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 32, tab: line 10) ^ Also fixed in PR. python3-NEAT.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/Ionchannels.h python3-NEAT.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/NETC.h python3-NEAT.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/Synapses.h python3-NEAT.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/tools/simtools/net/netsim.cpp ^ These are part of the package, and required. We leave them in. ========================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 2.6 s ========================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ^ Not sure what to do about this yet (fixed in the new fedora-review release I *think*) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-NEAT: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/neat/netsim.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ^ This is the compiled python module, so it's fine. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/unibe-cns/NEAT/archive/v0.9.2/python-NEAT-0.9.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f269c74d3c5c66c06d8eac5400482b577af442f557fb66cc9467533ebcf3687 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f269c74d3c5c66c06d8eac5400482b577af442f557fb66cc9467533ebcf3687 Requires -------- python3-NEAT (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(cython) >= 0.29.4 with python3.10dist(cython) < 0.30) /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.0.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) python(abi) python3.10dist(matplotlib) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(pytest) python3.10dist(scikit-learn) python3.10dist(scipy) python3.10dist(sympy) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-NEAT-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-NEAT: python-NEAT python3-NEAT python3-NEAT(x86-64) python3.10-NEAT python3.10dist(neatdend) python3dist(neatdend) python-NEAT-debugsource: python-NEAT-debugsource python-NEAT-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2056447-python-NEAT/srpm/python-NEAT.spec 2022-04-22 09:17:14.842975399 +0100 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2056447-python-NEAT/srpm-unpacked/python-NEAT.spec 2022-02-17 19:46:14.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + 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 + %bcond_with network @@ -62,3 +71,3 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog + Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2056447 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Cheers, Ankur -- 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=2056447 _______________________________________________ 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
