https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121797 Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |gotmax@e.email Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |gotmax@e.email Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- This looks good. Thank you for working on updating tzlocal. Notes and nitpicks ==== - We usually don't package .post releases, but all this does is change some metadata[1]. This is fine with me. [1]: https://github.com/pganssle/pytz-deprecation-shim/compare/0.1.0...0.1.0.post0 - I am not familiar with building sphinx doc PDFs, but I don't see anything glaringly wrong. ``` # pyproject-rpm-macros takes care of the LICENSE file in dist-info; we manually # include the file with the full license text as well %license licenses/LICENSE_APACHE `` - I would also install the main LICENSE to the central directory. It seems silly to have one license file in one directory and the other one in a completely different directory. - Why not put README.rst, CHANGELOG.rst (doesn't seem to be packaged at all), and the single docs PDF in the main subpackage? I don't think it's worth having a doc subpackage for just one extra file. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2121797-python-pytz- deprecation-shim/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pytz-deprecation-shim [?]: 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: 3 python3-pytz-deprecation-shim.noarch: W: no-documentation NOTE: This would be solved if at least the README was included in the main subpackage, as I always do when there's a separate doc subpackage, or if the docs subpackages were merged. python-pytz-deprecation-shim.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 python-pytz-deprecation-shim-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 python3-pytz-deprecation-shim.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 NOTE: rpmlint needs to learn about the new Licensing Guidelines. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pytz_deprecation_shim/pytz_deprecation_shim-0.1.0.post0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af097bae1b616dde5c5744441e2ddc69e74dfdcb0c263129610d85b87445a59d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af097bae1b616dde5c5744441e2ddc69e74dfdcb0c263129610d85b87445a59d Requires -------- python3-pytz-deprecation-shim (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) tzdata python-pytz-deprecation-shim-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pytz-deprecation-shim: python-pytz-deprecation-shim python3-pytz-deprecation-shim python3.11-pytz-deprecation-shim python3.11dist(pytz-deprecation-shim) python3dist(pytz-deprecation-shim) python-pytz-deprecation-shim-doc: python-pytz-deprecation-shim-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121797 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, Ocaml, R, fonts, Java, SugarActivity 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=2121797 _______________________________________________ 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
