https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258167 --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Despite the verbose review below, this package looks good overall and is almost ready for approval. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - Assuming you are targeting only Fedora (not EPEL9), you have the option to use the following syntax, which most people seem to find easier to read than the %bcond_with/%bcond_without syntax: %bcond check 1 - The inconsistent style in the manual test BR’s is odd: BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} BuildRequires: python3-lsp-jsonrpc Consider this instead: BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist python-lsp-jsonrpc} I agree with the decision not to use the dev extra to generate test dependencies, since it has unwanted pip-tools/mypy dependencies and mostly pins exact versions. - Normally I would suggest generating a man page with help2man if the result is adequately useful. Indeed, install -d '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' %py3_test_envvars help2man --no-info \ --output='%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/ruff-lsp.1' ruff-lsp in %install would produce decent-quality output, but the ruff-lsp command isn’t really designed to be directly called by humans: # ruff-lsp --help usage: ruff-lsp [-h] [--version] options: -h, --help show this help message and exit --version show program's version number and exit Overall, then, I won’t ask you to generate a man page. It wouldn’t be wrong to do so, but it also wouldn’t be wrong to decide that the result would be too trivial to bother with. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages - I think you should add BuildRequires: ruff to go with the Requires: ruff you already have. First, this keeps you (or someone else) from accidentally building a package that builds but doesn’t install somewhere that ruff isn’t available, like EPEL9. Second, I figure the test suite will start to actually use ruff at some point. However, there isn’t technically anything *wrong* here, so no change is required for approval. ===== Issues ===== - You can and should enable more tests (two out of four) by adding: BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-asyncio} - Since %pyproject_save_files/%pyproject_files handles the LICENSE file in the .dist-info directory, $ rpm -qL -p results/ruff-lsp-0.0.49-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/ruff_lsp-0.0.49.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/ruff-lsp/LICENSE which is enough to satisfy https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text it would be better to drop the duplicate file by removing %license LICENSE and instead using the new -l option for %pyproject_save_files to assert that a license file is properly handled in the .dist-info directory: %pyproject_save_files -l ruff_lsp - In case the “check” build conditional is toggled in the future, I think it would be better to make sure that at least an import test runs when the test suite is disabled: %check %if %{with check} %pytest %else %pyproject_check_import %endif - The .src.rpm wasn’t updated to match the spec file when you added ExcludeArch: %{ix86}. That change makes sense and is done correctly per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_noarch_with_unported_dependencies and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval ===== 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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258167-ruff- lsp/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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch: %{ix86} is required, and is present in the spec [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 14397 bytes in 1 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 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. Tests pass, but I haven’t attempted to plug this into something that actually speaks LSP. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Package is correctly ExcludeArch: %{ix86} [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. However, more tests can be easily enabled; see Issues. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: ruff-lsp-0.0.49-1.fc40.noarch.rpm ruff-lsp-0.0.49-1.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/tmpcfn9othg')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ruff-lsp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruff-lsp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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 ruff-lsp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linter', '%description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter') ruff-lsp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('formatter', '%description -l en_US formatter -> formatted, for matter, for-matter') ruff-lsp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('isort', '%description -l en_US isort -> sort, i sort') ruff-lsp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pyupgrade', '%description -l en_US pyupgrade -> upgrade') ruff-lsp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autocompletion', '%description -l en_US autocompletion -> auto completion, auto-completion, completion') ruff-lsp.noarch: W: python-missing-require lsprotocol ruff-lsp.noarch: W: python-missing-require packaging ruff-lsp.noarch: W: python-missing-require pygls ruff-lsp.noarch: W: python-missing-require typing-extensions ruff-lsp.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruff-lsp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings, 4 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff-lsp/archive/v0.0.49/ruff-lsp-0.0.49.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : adeb68274e34fbdb6ba0c2f9009950b617f54c2cbf0dd7b4f82c1677477e36d3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : adeb68274e34fbdb6ba0c2f9009950b617f54c2cbf0dd7b4f82c1677477e36d3 Requires -------- ruff-lsp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(lsprotocol) python3.12dist(packaging) python3.12dist(pygls) python3.12dist(ruff) python3.12dist(typing-extensions) ruff Provides -------- ruff-lsp: python3.12dist(ruff-lsp) python3dist(ruff-lsp) ruff-lsp Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258167-ruff-lsp/srpm/ruff-lsp.spec 2024-01-17 17:40:02.246709706 -0500 +++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258167-ruff-lsp/srpm-unpacked/ruff-lsp.spec 2024-01-12 18:38:05.000000000 -0500 @@ -10,8 +10,4 @@ Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz -# ruff is not built for %%{ix86} -# See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruff/blob/c7b8ef7bdc8cb947fae7c1c67157c6fab8e9c417/f/ruff.spec#_47 -ExcludeArch: %{ix86} - BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258167 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Perl, R, Java, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml 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=2258167 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258167%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
