https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257402 --- Comment #9 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== - Is there some reason this package is not noarch? That would remove the need for "%global debug_package %{nil}". The python code is installed in the noarch directory, and the binary is a script that is the same on all arches. - Remove "Group: Applications/Sound". Fedora does not use groups. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections - The %py3_build and %py3_install macros are deprecated: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_deprecated_macros Replace them with %pyproject_wheel and %pyproject_install, respectively. You may also want to add this after %prep: %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires That will install other packages needed by pyproject, such as python3-pip and python3-wheel. - Note that if you add "%pyproject_save_files dr14tmeter" after %pyproject_install, then the %files section can be reduced to this: %files -f %{pyproject_files} %license gpl-3.0.txt %doc README.md %{_bindir}/%{appname} %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* - A %check section that verifies the python code is importable is mandatory. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests If you use %pyproject_save_files as recommended above, then this suffices: %check %pyproject_check_import Otherwise, you can use %py3_check_import. - Consider adding virtual provides for the library interface: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_application_naming - Have you considered making python3-matplotlib be a Recommends of the main package, instead of creating an empty package just to pull it in? (And note that upstream could make this easier by adding a plotting extra, in which case you could use %pyproject_extras_subpkg to do the work for you.) - If you choose to keep the plots subpackage, it must have a Requires on the main package. - The license is given as "GPL-3.0-only", but I see the "or any later version" language everywhere. Also, debian/copyright says "License: GPL-3.0+". I think the license should be "GPL-3.0-or-later". - Why is prerelease version numbering in use, when there appears to have been a 1.0.16 release (in 2015!)? Speaking of such things, consider replacing the Release tag with "Release: %autorelease" and everything in the changelog section with "%autochangelog". See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs - Please add a comment about the Patch1 line describing what it does. See "Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified" below. (Also, that could be "Patch:" instead of "Patch1:" if you like.) - Note the "non-executable-script" complaint from rpmlint below. Should that file be executable? - The binary is named dr14_tmeter, with an underscore, but the man page is named dr14tmeter.1, without an underscore. Is one of them misnamed? ===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 865 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: 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. [!]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dr14tmeter-plots [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [!]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dr14tmeter-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.x86_64.rpm dr14tmeter-plots-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.x86_64.rpm dr14tmeter-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.src.rpm ================================================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwz83aemd')] checks: 32, packages: 3 dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dr14tmeter/dr14_tmeter.py 644 /usr/bin/python dr14tmeter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dr14_tmeter dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: no-binary dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: E: no-binary =========== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 2 dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dr14tmeter/dr14_tmeter.py 644 /usr/bin/python dr14tmeter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dr14_tmeter dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: W: no-documentation dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: E: no-binary dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: no-binary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 5 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/simon-r/dr14_t.meter/archive/v1.0.16/dr14tmeter-1.0.16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73cc55af09879ecc92f911efa25988edfc9de7520efca438e192efd69c5a6372 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73cc55af09879ecc92f911efa25988edfc9de7520efca438e192efd69c5a6372 Requires -------- dr14tmeter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 coreutils lame python(abi) python3-numpy vorbis-tools dr14tmeter-plots (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-matplotlib Provides -------- dr14tmeter: dr14tmeter dr14tmeter(x86-64) python3.12dist(dr14-tmeter) python3dist(dr14-tmeter) dr14tmeter-plots: dr14tmeter-plots dr14tmeter-plots(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257402 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Ruby, C/C++, R 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=2257402 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202257402%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ 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
