https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235087 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is a nice, clean, simple package. I had a couple of opinionated comments, but the only actual issue I found is an unwanted shebang in a non-executable module in site-packages. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Rpmlint correctly reports that urlpy.py has a shebang line but is not executable. python3-urlpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/urlpy.py 644 /usr/bin/env python If this shebang line were actually used, it would need to be corrected, e.g. by %py3_shebang_fix, which happens automatically for scripts installed to %{_bindir} (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs). However, since the file isn’t executable, the shebang is useless and should be removed. Since the file isn’t even executable in the upstream repository, I proposed a PR to remove the shebang: https://github.com/nexB/urlpy/pull/12 You could use it as a patch: # Remove useless shebang lines # https://github.com/nexB/urlpy/pull/12 Patch: %{url}/pull/12.patch ===== Notes (no change is required!) ===== - You could remove the manual dependency BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) and instead change %pyproject_buildrequires to %pyproject_buildrequires requirements-tests.txt Often, such tests requirements files are unusable because they contain a ton of linters, typecheckers, coverage tools, etc. that we don’t want (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters), but for this package the file only contains pytest, so generating test BR’s from the requirements file is convenient and equivalent to the manual BR. - I still think that writing %URL instead of %url or %{url} is a bit surprising, but it’s not wrong. - Similarly, I think that using a %{pypi_name} macro instead of writing out the canonical name adds noise without really improving reusability, but this is only a matter of opinion. ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2235087-python-urlpy/licensecheck.txt [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]: 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. $ rpm -qL -p 2235087-python-urlpy/results/python3-urlpy-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/urlpy-0.5.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/urlpy-0.5.dist-info/README.rst It is unusual that README.rst is marked as a license file, but this follows directly from upstream: https://github.com/nexB/urlpy/blob/c4fdb3843594ba7a212100adeb45ae8c9b62c33b/setup.cfg#L2-L4 I see no reason to try to meddle with it. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 5355 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [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. https://github.com/nexB/urlpy/blob/c4fdb3843594ba7a212100adeb45ae8c9b62c33b/setup.cfg#L2-L4 [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 ------- Checking: python3-urlpy-0.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-urlpy-0.5.0-1.fc40.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/tmpgqkw4c7a')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-urlpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/urlpy.py 644 /usr/bin/env python ================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 1 python3-urlpy.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/urlpy.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nexB/urlpy/archive/v0.5.0/urlpy-0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a2e57e0b324bd2fbb04cb164b87b60a2d20c9471a9d08624afa00a09a223bf1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a2e57e0b324bd2fbb04cb164b87b60a2d20c9471a9d08624afa00a09a223bf1 Requires -------- python3-urlpy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(publicsuffix2) Provides -------- python3-urlpy: python-urlpy python3-urlpy python3.12-urlpy python3.12dist(urlpy) python3dist(urlpy) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235087 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, C/C++, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2235087 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235087%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
