https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2083873 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(mhayden@xxxxxxxxx |in.net) |m) --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The License field says MIT, but the license appears to be BSD. - There is no license file or any license text in the source distribution, but the license (BSD) requires it. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Even the source file headers reference a non-existent LICENSE.txt: # Use of this file is governed by the BSD 3-clause license that # can be found in the LICENSE.txt file in the project root. You should contact upstream about adding the license text to the sdist. Meanwhile, it looks like the original source is at https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/tree/4.7.2/runtime/Python3, and you can get the LICENSE.txt from the top level of the repository. - If there are no upstream tests, or you cannot run them, you must at least do an import-only smoke test: %check %pyproject_check_import https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests However, if you packaged from a GitHub archive, e.g. https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/archive/4.7.2/antlr4-4.7.2.tar.gz, there are also some upstream tests in runtime/Python3/test. I’m not sure how complete they are; it may be worth running the smoke test too. - Is there a reason for packaging 4.7.2 from Dec 18, 2018, insetead of the latest PyPI release, which is 4.10 from Apr 11, 2022? If not, please update; if so, could you note the reason in the spec file? ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - The -r option to %pyproject_requires is the default behavior now, so you can leave it off if you like. ===== 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. [-]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 66 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2083873-python- antlr4-python3-runtime/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/atn(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/atn/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/dfa(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/dfa/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/error(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/error/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/tree(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/tree/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/xpath(python3-antlr4-runtime), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/antlr4/xpath/__pycache__(python3-antlr4-runtime) Package conflicts with the python3-antlr4-runtime subpackage of antlr4-project; this is OK since this package is EPEL9-only and antlr4-project will not be backported for now. [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. [-]: Package does not generate any conflict. Package conflicts with the python3-antlr4-runtime subpackage of antlr4-project; this is OK since this package is EPEL9-only and antlr4-project will not be backported for now. [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 2 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 (except as mentioned) [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. [!]: 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. [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://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/antlr4-python3-runtime/antlr4-python3-runtime-4.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 168cdcec8fb9152e84a87ca6fd261b3d54c8f6358f42ab3b813b14a7193bb50b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 168cdcec8fb9152e84a87ca6fd261b3d54c8f6358f42ab3b813b14a7193bb50b Requires -------- python3-antlr4-python3-runtime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-antlr4-python3-runtime: python-antlr4-python3-runtime python3-antlr4-python3-runtime python3.10-antlr4-python3-runtime python3.10dist(antlr4-python3-runtime) python3dist(antlr4-python3-runtime) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2083873 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, PHP, fonts, C/C++, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ 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 python3-antlr4-python3-runtime.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/xpath/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/atn/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/dfa/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/antlr4/error/__init__.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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=2083873 _______________________________________________ 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
