https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203546 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Suggestions (no change required for approval) ===== - It is not necessary to number the sole Source; you can write “Source0:” as “Source:”. - A simpler and equivalent URL for the source would be: https://github.com/Blosc/python-blosc2/archive/v%{version}/python-blosc2-%{version}.tar.gz - Because pyproject_files already includes a copy of LICENSE.txt in the dist-info directory, properly marked with %license, you can remove the explicit “%license LICENSE.txt” from the %files list. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-blosc2-2.2.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/blosc2-2.2.2.dist-info/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/licenses/python3-blosc2/LICENSE.txt See also: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223 - Consider setting export VERBOSE=1 in %build so that cmake will print the compiler invocations. (The value of the environment variable does not matter, only whether it is set.) https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/envvar/VERBOSE.html - The package is built with -O3 instead of -O2, which is inconsistent with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags. However, -O3 appears to be coming from somewhere outside this package, and I couldn’t figure out where, so I won’t block the review on this. If you know how to fix it, please do so. Other distro flags are honored. - The spec file and SRPM are slightly out of sync (not just rpmautospec), but the difference is unimportant: -# For tests: +# For tests - Version 2.2.5 is available (but requires a blosc2/C-Blosc2 update). I don’t want to block the review on chasing a pair of relatively fast-moving upstreams, but please consider upgrading both patchages when you have a chance. - Since there are currently no downstream patches, and the tarball extraction directory matches the package name, %autosetup -p1 -n python-blosc2-%{version} could be simplified to %autosetup - Instead of the manual BuildRequires on python3-pytest, consider %pyproject_buildrequires requirements-test-wheels.txt (given that requirements-tests.txt has PyTorch in it, and you would have to sed-filter that out, and the result would be identical to requirements-test-wheels.txt, so you might as well use the latter.) This generates an additional BR on psutil, which enables one additional test. Maybe it will be even more helpful in the future—or maybe not. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. The sole unversioned .so file, /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/blosc2/blosc2_ext.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so is a properly-installed Python extension module and is not in the ld path. 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". 188 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2203546-python-blosc2/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. The package is built with -O3 instead of -O2, which is inconsistent with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags. However, -O3 appears to be coming from somewhere outside this package, and I couldn’t figure out where, so I won’t block the review on this. Other distro flags are honored. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 2 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: [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-blosc2 [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [!]: Latest version is packaged. Version 2.2.5 is available (but requires a blosc2/C-Blosc2 update). [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-blosc2-2.2.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-blosc2-debugsource-2.2.2-2.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-blosc2-2.2.2-2.fc38.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/tmptlich2oo')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python-blosc2.src: W: strange-permission python-blosc2.spec 600 ================ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-blosc2: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/blosc2/blosc2_ext.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Blosc/python-blosc2/archive/refs/tags/v2.2.2.tar.gz#/python-blosc2-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8808e6d04ba97cdc298c72dacacc16bb675d94cdaac6fa73c5bbd81842740069 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8808e6d04ba97cdc298c72dacacc16bb675d94cdaac6fa73c5bbd81842740069 Requires -------- python3-blosc2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libblosc2.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.11dist(msgpack) python3.11dist(ndindex) python3.11dist(numpy) python3.11dist(py-cpuinfo) python3.11dist(rich) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-blosc2-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-blosc2: python-blosc2 python3-blosc2 python3-blosc2(x86-64) python3.11-blosc2 python3.11dist(blosc2) python3dist(blosc2) python-blosc2-debugsource: python-blosc2-debugsource python-blosc2-debugsource(x86-64) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2203546-python-blosc2/srpm/python-blosc2.spec 2023-07-12 08:10:58.949200467 -0400 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2203546-python-blosc2/srpm-unpacked/python-blosc2.spec 2023-05-14 10:57:44.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-blosc2 Version: 2.2.2 @@ -11,5 +21,5 @@ BuildRequires: ninja-build BuildRequires: blosc2-devel -# For tests: +# For tests BuildRequires: python3-pytest @@ -65,3 +75,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun May 14 2023 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2.2-2 +- Convert to %%pyproject macros + +* Sat May 13 2023 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.2.2-1 +- First version Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2203546 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl 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=2203546 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202203546%23c3 _______________________________________________ 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
