https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235084 --- Comment #3 from Sandro <gui1ty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 bsd-new.LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep: ./tests/data/filetest/package/TicketImport-0.7a-py2.5.egg See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python_Eggs/ => These are bogus due to the nature of the package. The files are used for testing and/or internally. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. => When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-typecode (description) => I'm not sure about this one. Will check. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "Python License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 2-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License [generated file]", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "X11 License", "GNU General Public License", "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 630 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-typecode/licensecheck.txt => Normally, I'd remove that, but this looks awesome ;) [!]: 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. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-typecode (description) [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [-]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-typecode [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-typecode-doc-30.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-typecode-30.0.1-1.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/tmpw729vvfe')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/apache-2.0.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/apache-2.0.LICENSE python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/bsd-new.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/bsd-new.LICENSE python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers_mapping.py.NOTICE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers.py.NOTICE 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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 python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/apache-2.0.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/apache-2.0.LICENSE python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/bsd-new.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/bsd-new.LICENSE python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers_mapping.py.NOTICE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers.py.NOTICE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nexB/typecode/archive/v30.0.1/typecode-30.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7c1c3e89426aa5f3636a97b7deb4dce873a3111075d58094ea0ce11da4c64969 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c1c3e89426aa5f3636a97b7deb4dce873a3111075d58094ea0ce11da4c64969 Requires -------- python3-typecode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((python3.11dist(attrs) < 20.1 or python3.11dist(attrs) > 20.1) with python3.11dist(attrs) >= 18.1) python(abi) python3.11dist(binaryornot) python3.11dist(commoncode) python3.11dist(pdfminer-six) python3.11dist(plugincode) python-typecode-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-typecode: python-typecode python3-typecode python3.11-typecode python3.11dist(typecode) python3dist(typecode) python-typecode-doc: python-typecode-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-typecode --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, R, Ocaml, Java, fonts 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=2235084 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235084%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
