https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161525 Karolina Surma <ksurma@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ksurma@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #27 from Karolina Surma <ksurma@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I installed the package on my Rawhide machine and checked around half of the menu items, no issues spotted. I don't see anything striking in the package metadata, nor the build logs. Things in the specfile are commented around, I find it sufficient. Please raise the uncovered issues with upstream. Package APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies That's a new one -- It seems it comes from python-jupyter-filesystem though, so this is not an issue (see Requires below) [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. - Notebook has got one, maybe the Lab could too? (Not a MUST item). [?]: (Possible future enhancement) There's `%{_datadir}/jupyter/lab` in the files -- if other extension packages will use this directory, maybe it'll make sense in to include it into python-jupyter-filesystem. - 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. Note: License file third-party-licenses.json is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Decided that's moot. License texts were marked correctly. ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "MIT License", "BSD 0-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 555 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ksurma/tmp/2161525-jupyterlab/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. - Notebook has got one, maybe the Lab could too? [-]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: 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]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files - it's not a trivial task in this package [-]: 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. [?]: 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 ------- Checking: jupyterlab-4.0.0~a34-1.fc39.noarch.rpm jupyterlab-4.0.0~a34-1.fc39.src.rpm ================================================ rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpgpzzk9ut')] checks: 31, packages: 2 jupyterlab.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jlpm jupyterlab.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jupyter-lab jupyterlab.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jupyter-labextension jupyterlab.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jupyter-labhub jupyterlab.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary JupyterLab jupyterlab.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary JupyterLab ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s ================ Requires -------- jupyterlab (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(jupyter-server) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(jupyter-server) >= 2.0.1) (python3.11dist(jupyterlab-server) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(jupyterlab-server) >= 2.19) /usr/bin/python3 config(jupyterlab) python(abi) python-jupyter-filesystem python3.11dist(async-lru) python3.11dist(ipykernel) python3.11dist(jinja2) python3.11dist(jupyter-core) python3.11dist(jupyter-lsp) python3.11dist(notebook-shim) python3.11dist(packaging) python3.11dist(tornado) python3.11dist(traitlets) -- 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=2161525 _______________________________________________ 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
