https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2283281 --- Comment #3 from wojnilowicz <lukasz.wojnilowicz@xxxxxxxxx> --- I'm not a golang user, so I couldn't help with your many golang package reviews, but this one I can take :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= 1) Downloading "Source: https://github.com/RDFLib/pySHACL/archive/v0.26.0/pyshacl-0.26.0.tar.gz"; gives me line 42: cd: pyshacl-0.26.0: No such file or directory when "rpmbuild --bb python-pyshacl.spec" because the directory is "pySHACL-0.26.0" and not "pyshacl-0.26.0" In your SRPM file it's fine though. Did you download it in any special way? Besides this is what fedora-review gave - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-pyshacl/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 2) Could you add man pages for the following files: python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl_server python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl_validate with help2man --no-discard-stderr %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/pyshacl -o %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/pyshacl.1 ? There is quite a lot written there. 3) Could you deduplicate the following files thon3-pyshacl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/pyshacl_validate /usr/bin/pyshacl python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/constraints/sparql/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/constraints/core/__init__.py with the %fdupes macro? 4) Could you fix that according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_interpreter_invocation? python3-pyshacl.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 5) Could you remove pyshacl-cli.spec? It seem to be used for exe only. 6) The spec file in your SRPM has the following typo "< # Disable netweork dependent tests" and thus differs from the spec file you attached here. This fails the checklist. Could you correct this? 7) It builds only on rawhide due to dependencies, but I guess that's fine. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 410 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-pyshacl/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/bin, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/bin, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 96442 bytes in 5 files. [!]: 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]: 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 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]: 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?) [-]: 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). [?]: 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. 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]: 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: Bad spec filename: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- pyshacl/srpm-unpacked/python-pyshacl.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyshacl-0.26.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-pyshacl-0.26.0-1.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/tmpkii_60wy')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyshacl.src: E: spelling-error ('validator', 'Summary(en_US) validator -> lavatorial') python-pyshacl.src: E: spelling-error ('rdflib', '%description -l en_US rdflib -> rifling') python3-pyshacl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('validator', 'Summary(en_US) validator -> lavatorial') python3-pyshacl.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rdflib', '%description -l en_US rdflib -> rifling') python3-pyshacl.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl_server python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyshacl_validate python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/bin/pyshacl_validate /usr/bin/pyshacl python3-pyshacl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/constraints/sparql/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pyshacl/constraints/core/__init__.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 5 warnings, 12 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-pyshacl". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/RDFLib/pySHACL/archive/v0.26.0/pyshacl-0.26.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48d44f317cd9aad8e3fdb5df8aa5706fa92dc6b2746419698035e84a320fb89d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a5a2abb94ac2b429ef3a92b42192c48bfdf66462355696023153e97d5a10136d diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- python3-pyshacl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.12dist(html5lib) < 2~~ with python3.12dist(html5lib) >= 1.1) (python3.12dist(owlrl) < 7~~ with python3.12dist(owlrl) >= 6.0.2) (python3.12dist(rdflib) < 8~~ with python3.12dist(rdflib) >= 6.3.2) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(packaging) python3.12dist(prettytable) Provides -------- python3-pyshacl: python-pyshacl python3-pyshacl python3.12-pyshacl python3.12dist(pyshacl) python3dist(pyshacl) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-pyshacl --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Java, PHP, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R 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=2283281 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202283281%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
