https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108 --- Comment #29 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - The License field is still not quite right. The license that licensecheck calls "NTP License (legal disclaimer)" is called "HPND" in SPDX parlance. That is the license for these files: pyfiglet/fonts-standard/5x8.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/chartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/chartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/xchartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts-standard/xchartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts/5x8.flf pyfiglet/fonts/chartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts/chartri.flf pyfiglet/fonts/xchartr.flf pyfiglet/fonts/xchartri.flf - I don't think that removing the shebangs from pyfiglet/__init__.py and pyfiglet/test.py is the right thing to do. Both are made to be executable. Instead, the shebangs should be fixed in %prep; e.g., like this: %py3_shebang_fix pyfiglet/{__init__,test}.py Then, because the installer strips the executable bits off, add them back in %install instead of removing the shebangs: chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/{__init__,test}.py - Please consider not building for i686, by adding this to the spec file: ExcludeArch: %{ix86} See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval - Note the file-not-utf8 warning from rpmlint below. The file doc/figfont.txt is encoded with ISO8859-1 instead of UTF-8. - The LICENSE file in the dist-info is marked as a license already, so there is no need to include it a second time with %license: $ rpm -qLp python3-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyfiglet-1.0.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-pyfiglet/LICENSE - The comment in %check is misleading. The pytest tests fail, not because of a missing subprocess module (which is builtin to python), but rather because they try to use the doh font from fonts-contrib. We have removed fonts-contrib for license reasons. I wonder if upstream could be prevailed upon to use a font in fonts-standard for the tests. ===== 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. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* MIT License", "X11 License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "BSD 3-Clause License", "NTP License". 27 files have unknown license. [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. [-]: 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 82738 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pyfiglet-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4tabv27y')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-pyfiglet.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: pyfiglet-1.0.2-no-contrib-font.tar.gz python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 python3-pyfiglet.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python3-pyfiglet/figfont.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- python3-pyfiglet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyfiglet: python-pyfiglet python3-pyfiglet python3.12-pyfiglet python3.12dist(pyfiglet) python3dist(pyfiglet) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1876108 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=1876108 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201876108%23c29 -- _______________________________________________ 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
