https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2082363 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The license tag is wrong. "GPL v3" is not a valid license identifier either before or after the SPDX change. You can find SPDX license names here: https://spdx.org/licenses/. Upstream likewise is using an invalid license name in the License fields of PKG-INFO and setup.py. According to the Classifier:License field of PKG-INFO, the license is GPL-3.0-or-later. However, the headers of the *.py files in the qpageview directory all carry a license of GPL-2.0-or-later. I think the License tag should look like this: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later - Use of the %pypi_source macro without a project name is deprecated: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pypi_source. It should be something like this instead: %{pypi_source %pypi_name} - The %py3_build and %py3_install macros are deprecated; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_deprecated_macros. Use %pyproject_wheel and %pyproject_install instead. You will also need to do one of the following: 1. Add this to the spec file: %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -t -OR- 2. Add this to the spec file: BuildRequires: python3dist(pip) BuildRequires: python3dist(wheel) You can, if you wish, also add this after %pyproject_install: %pyproject_save_files qpageview If you then change the first %files line to read: %files -n python3-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files} then you can remove these two lines from %files: %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name} %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{pypi_version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info - A %check script is mandatory; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests. Since upstream did not provide any tests, add this to the spec file: %check %pyproject_check_import That's for the case where you used the %project_save_files macro. If not, then add this instead: %check %py3_check_import qpageview - The %python_provide macro is also deprecated; see the link above. Remove it. - These two lines in %prep are unnecessary: # Remove bundled egg-info rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info Under the old guidelines, only binary eggs were required to be removed, and this egg is not binary. With the new macros, the egg directory is ignored, so there is no need to remove it. - There is a non-fatal intersphinx error during the build. If you want to get rid of it, and add valid HTML links to the python documentation to the output, add this to the spec file: BuildRequires: python3-docs And something like this to %prep: # Use local objects.inv for intersphinx sed -e "s|\('https://docs\.python\.org/3', \)None|\1'%{_docdir}/python3-docs/html/objects.inv'|" \ -i docs/source/conf.py - Minor nitpick: "%package -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc" could be written more succinctly as "%package doc", and likewise for %description and %files. - Please take a look at the rpmlint output below. ===== 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. [!]: 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 v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 52 files have unknown license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [!]: 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 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: [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. [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [!]: %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 ------- python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized qpageview documentation python-qpageview.src: W: invalid-license GPL v3 python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3 python3-qpageview.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3 python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python-qpageview-doc/license.rst /usr/share/doc/python-qpageview-doc/html/_sources/license.rst.txt Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized qpageview documentation python3-qpageview.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3 python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3 python-qpageview-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/python-qpageview-doc/license.rst /usr/share/doc/python-qpageview-doc/html/_sources/license.rst.txt Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/q/qpageview/qpageview-0.6.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1c1e3d6dc5374264e1f7c7d4a78616a811e8131c7ed214aed7e08a71f12923e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1c1e3d6dc5374264e1f7c7d4a78616a811e8131c7ed214aed7e08a71f12923e9 Requires -------- python3-qpageview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-qpageview-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-qpageview: python-qpageview python3-qpageview python3.11-qpageview python3.11dist(qpageview) python3dist(qpageview) python-qpageview-doc: python-qpageview-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2082363 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ruby 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=2082363 _______________________________________________ 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
