https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241432 --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The version in the metadata is wrong: $ rpm -q --provides -p results/python3-pycomposefile-0.0.30-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pycomposefile = 0.0.30-1.fc40 python3-pycomposefile = 0.0.30-1.fc40 python3.12-pycomposefile = 0.0.30-1.fc40 python3.12dist(pycomposefile) = 0.0.1~a1 python3dist(pycomposefile) = 0.0.1~a1 You can fix this by overriding it with export BUILD_TAG='%{version}' preferably (for consistency) in all of %generate_buildrequires, %build, and %install. You can reference: Incorrect version number in setup.py https://github.com/smurawski/pycomposefile/issues/29 - If you switch to the GitHub archive, something like Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz then you can run the tests that you are currently skipping. See: Source tarball on PyPi is missing sample directory https://github.com/smurawski/pycomposefile/issues/28 Now you can remove all of the test skips. But you will have to add cd src/ before %pyproject_buildrequires, %pyproject_wheel, and %pyproject_install. - In %prep, this is unnecessary, and looks like it was left over from before you opened a PR for the license file: cp %{SOURCE1} . - Regarding # Some test files refer to ./src instead of ./pycomposefile. sed 's/src.pycomposefile/pycomposefile/' -i tests/**/*.py I proposed the change upstream in https://github.com/smurawski/pycomposefile/pull/30 Consider Patch: %{url}/pull/30.patch instead of sed. - The SRPM and spec file are not quite synchronized. ===== Notes ===== - Adding the LICENSE file in a patch might normally be dubious, but I think it is OK because the PR was approved and merged upstream, and adding it is the right thing to do. ===== 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. [-]: 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. License file is added in a PR, but the PR was approved and merged upstream, so this seems OK. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2241432-python- pycomposefile/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: No rpmlint messages. [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 76 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: [x]: 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. (tests pass, anyway) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. However, the license file was accepted by upstream in a PR, so I think this is OK and desirable until the license file is included in a new release. [-]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pycomposefile-0.0.30-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pycomposefile-0.0.30-1.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/tmpzug4wf6s')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/smurawski/pycomposefile/pull/27.patch : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d48030e0f7502f2207ab8b4d7b8310b04e96f26be3267052d72d4ba0e139163a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d48030e0f7502f2207ab8b4d7b8310b04e96f26be3267052d72d4ba0e139163a https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pycomposefile/pycomposefile-0.0.30.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 190a2920ef05f86e620f3e0d1761931c2a57a38baa2877472337df69c8a1ca53 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 190a2920ef05f86e620f3e0d1761931c2a57a38baa2877472337df69c8a1ca53 Requires -------- python3-pycomposefile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(pyyaml) Provides -------- python3-pycomposefile: python-pycomposefile python3-pycomposefile python3.12-pycomposefile python3.12dist(pycomposefile) python3dist(pycomposefile) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2241432-python-pycomposefile/srpm/python-pycomposefile.spec 2023-10-04 16:57:00.764465647 -0400 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2241432-python-pycomposefile/srpm-unpacked/python-pycomposefile.spec 2023-09-28 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -65,5 +65,4 @@ sed 's/src.pycomposefile/pycomposefile/' -i tests/**/*.py -# Some tests require sample files which are not included in the PyPi package. %pytest -k "\ not test_service_with_list_environment_file \ @@ -78,5 +77,4 @@ %files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.md -%license LICENSE Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2241432 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Java, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, 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=2241432 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241432%23c1 _______________________________________________ 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
