https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115102 --- Comment #28 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Whether or not you go with %pyproject_check_import -t or -e is up to you. Ideally, you make the actual tests work. Packages that are not tested in %check are much more likely to be broken without notice. You might also want to run the CLI tools, e.g. with --help, in %check. I've tried to run the package and it's rather unusual that it tracebacks immediately without config: $ pylero --help Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/pylero", line 39, in <module> main() File "/usr/bin/pylero", line 30, in main imp_mod = __import__("pylero.{0}".format(the_mod), fromlist=[""]) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/build.py", line 8, in <module> from pylero.build_linked_work_item import ArrayOfBuildLinkedWorkItem File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/build_linked_work_item.py", line 9, in <module> from pylero.work_item import _WorkItem File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/work_item.py", line 1580, in <module> cfg = Configuration() ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/base_polarion.py", line 105, in __init__ raise PyleroLibException( pylero.exceptions.PyleroLibException: The config files must contain valid values for: url, user, password and default_project $ pylero-cmd --help Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/pylero-cmd", line 3, in <module> from pylero.cli.cmd import CmdList File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/cli/cmd.py", line 9, in <module> from pylero.document import Document File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/document.py", line 24, in <module> from pylero.work_item import _WorkItem File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/work_item.py", line 1580, in <module> cfg = Configuration() ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pylero/base_polarion.py", line 105, in __init__ raise PyleroLibException( pylero.exceptions.PyleroLibException: The config files must contain valid values for: url, user, password and default_project Together with a lack of a manpage, it's a bit hard to understand how to provide the config. It's in the README, but I'd expect --help to work. I would be reluctant to ship this to our users in this form, but OTOH assessing the friendliness of packaged software is not up to the package reviewer. The packaging itself is quite alright otherwise: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= The CLI immediately crashes. Considering you are the upstream, I recommend adding manual pages there. But not a blocker. ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". [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 20480 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]: 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. [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). [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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 ------- python3-pylero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pylero python3-pylero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pylero-cmd 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s Considering you are the upstream, I recommend adding manual pages there. But not a blocker. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-pylero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pylero python3-pylero.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pylero-cmd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/RedHatQE/pylero/archive/0.0.4/pylero-0.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 40d4b5c984a13fd654c2b81afe23babffa3146542c525181635a0ed2c1b4e217 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 40d4b5c984a13fd654c2b81afe23babffa3146542c525181635a0ed2c1b4e217 BuildRequires ------------- (python3dist(toml) if python3-devel < 3.11) pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3dist(click) python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(setuptools) >= 40.8 python3dist(setuptools) >= 45 python3dist(setuptools-scm) python3dist(suds) python3dist(wheel) It's a bit weird that this requires 2 different setuptools minimal versions, but in practice, it works. Requires -------- python3-pylero (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.11 python3.11dist(click) python3.11dist(suds) Provides -------- python3-pylero: python-pylero = 0.0.4-1.fc38 python3-pylero = 0.0.4-1.fc38 python3.11-pylero = 0.0.4-1.fc38 python3.11dist(pylero) = 0.0.4 python3dist(pylero) = 0.0.4 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2115102 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Ruby, fonts, R, PHP, Java, Ocaml 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=2115102 _______________________________________________ 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
