https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249375 --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The package is obviously supposed to include an entry point /usr/bin/pass-audit (and the man page and shell completions for it are present), but no such script is installed. You could patch setup.py to ask setuptools to create the entry point, https://python-packaging.readthedocs.io/en/latest/command-line-scripts.html#the-console-scripts-entry-point which is probably the least error-prone approach, or you could possibly write your own wrapper script that does the equivalent of calling /usr/bin/python3 -m pass_audit <args> - Since you are not using tox (%tox) to run tests, and in fact upstream has no tox configuration, there is no need to generate BuildRequires for tox. Please change %pyproject_buildrequires -t to %pyproject_buildrequires - Since %pyproject_save_files is able to correctly handle the license file, you don’t need to manually package it with %license LICENSE That harmlessly but unnecessarily duplicates the license file: $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-pass-audit-1.2-3.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pass_audit-1.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-pass-audit/LICENSE You can remove "%license LICENSE" and, preferably, also change %pyproject_save_files %{pypkg} to %pyproject_save_files -l %{pypkg} in order to assert that a properly-marked license file is present in the .dist-info directory. This is helpful to make sure the automatically-handled license file is not accidentally dropped in a future update. No change to license file handling is technically required for approval, but the above suggestion is still a good idea. ===== Notes ====== - I did not evaluate whether the audit.bash extension works as expected. - I did not evaluate whether shell completions work as expected, but I can check this once an entry point is packaged. ===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2249375-pass-audit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-pass-audit-1.2-3.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/pass_audit-1.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-pass-audit/LICENSE (pass-audit depends on python3-pass-audit) [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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 7010 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [k]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pass-audit [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=120741944 [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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) Differences are solely due to rpmautospec macro expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: pass-audit-1.2-3.fc41.noarch.rpm python3-pass-audit-1.2-3.fc41.noarch.rpm pass-audit-1.2-3.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/tmpdpp23a59')] checks: 32, packages: 3 pass-audit.noarch: E: spelling-error ('zxcvbn', '%description -l en_US zxcvbn ') pass-audit.noarch: E: spelling-error ('haveibeenpwned', '%description -l en_US haveibeenpwned ') pass-audit.src: E: spelling-error ('zxcvbn', '%description -l en_US zxcvbn ') pass-audit.src: E: spelling-error ('haveibeenpwned', '%description -l en_US haveibeenpwned ') pass-audit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary ====================================================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 13 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 s ======================================================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 pass-audit.noarch: E: spelling-error ('zxcvbn', '%description -l en_US zxcvbn ') pass-audit.noarch: E: spelling-error ('haveibeenpwned', '%description -l en_US haveibeenpwned ') pass-audit.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-pass-audit.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://pujol.io/keys/0xc5469996f0df68ec.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f2a5cea6a02090f7706b2f78086d29659b19d64931494ca329b0914d6ba8e97 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f2a5cea6a02090f7706b2f78086d29659b19d64931494ca329b0914d6ba8e97 https://github.com/roddhjav/pass-audit/releases/download/v1.2/pass-audit-1.2.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d8908b890b76e7a88955721f654bfa24f4ca0c9cb85bc9354c8b76534ff5b4e9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d8908b890b76e7a88955721f654bfa24f4ca0c9cb85bc9354c8b76534ff5b4e9 https://github.com/roddhjav/pass-audit/releases/download/v1.2/pass-audit-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 570d93841346d94190bf93239783068db668f2f3228c982f746a9fa351e084af CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 570d93841346d94190bf93239783068db668f2f3228c982f746a9fa351e084af Requires -------- pass-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash python3-pass-audit python3-pass-audit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): pass python(abi) python3.13dist(requests) python3.13dist(zxcvbn) Provides -------- pass-audit: pass-audit python3-pass-audit: python-pass-audit python3-pass-audit python3.13-pass-audit python3.13dist(pass-audit) python3dist(pass-audit) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2249375-pass-audit/srpm/pass-audit.spec 2024-07-19 10:19:34.123517487 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2249375-pass-audit/srpm-unpacked/pass-audit.spec 2023-11-11 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 3; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: pass-audit Version: 1.2 @@ -74,3 +84,10 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Nov 12 2023 Antoine Damhet <antoine.damhet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-3 +- verify upstream source gpg signature + +* Wed Oct 25 2023 Antoine Damhet <antoine.damhet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-2 +- Ship LICENSE file + +* Fri Oct 20 2023 Antoine Damhet <antoine.damhet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2-1 +- Import spec file Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2249375 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, fonts, Ocaml, 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=2249375 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202249375%23c5 -- _______________________________________________ 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
