https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106699 Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(italo.garcia+fedo | |ra@xxxxxxxx) --- Comment #3 from Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@xxxxxxxx> --- python3-aiokafka.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crc32c.py 644 /usr/bin/env python It could be made executable or the shebang line could be removed, as it is only imported via record/util.py: from ._crc32c import crc as crc32c_py But I think it is also fine to ignore this error as the python macros handle all of this and its annoying to have to override that. python3-aiokafka.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crecords/crc32c.c python3-aiokafka.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crecords/crc32c.h What are those crc32 files? Are those really needed ? I feel this is related to some other crc32 / snappy related things we have encountered elsewhere too :) I would remove these two files at the end of %install Note the source is not using the proper path for downloading, so it downloads "v0.7.2.tar.gz" instead of "aiokafka-0.7.2.tar.gz" Instead of: Source0: https://github.com/%{owner}/%{sname}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz Use: Source0: https://github.com/%{owner}/%{sname}/archive/v%{version}/%{sname}-%{version}.tar.gz Please fold in the source update and crc32 file deletion items, and then the package can be approved: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python3-aiokafka : /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/aiokafka/record/_crecords/crc32c.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages ===== 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* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* zlib License", "zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 219 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2106699-python-aiokafka/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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [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. [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: [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 ------- ============================ 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-aiokafka.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crc32c.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-aiokafka.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crecords/crc32c.c python3-aiokafka.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/aiokafka/record/_crecords/crc32c.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aio-libs/aiokafka/archive/refs/tags/v0.7.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6b9d8cb8d9e837ea38473545a2ac798e6648b5d81b22627963cbc6bd8c1dd81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6b9d8cb8d9e837ea38473545a2ac798e6648b5d81b22627963cbc6bd8c1dd81 Requires -------- python3-aiokafka (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(kafka-python) Provides -------- python3-aiokafka: python-aiokafka python3-aiokafka python3.11-aiokafka python3.11dist(aiokafka) python3dist(aiokafka) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106699 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, C/C++, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106699 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
