https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2297640 --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- This is a good package with a few details that should be addressed before approval. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The zero-argument form of %{pypi_source} is deprecated. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pypi_source Please write %{pypi_source %{pypi_name}} or just %{pypi_source base58} instead. (See the Notes section regarding %{pypi_name}.) - The description must be wrapped to 80 characters. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description See the suggestion about using a macro in the Notes section for an example. This was detected by rpmlint: python-base58.src: E: description-line-too-long Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network. python3-base58.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network. - Since the %{pyproject_files} contain a properly-marked license file, you don’t need to package a duplicate in %{_licensedir}. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-base58-2.1.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/base58-2.1.1.dist-info/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/python3-base58/COPYING You can omit %license COPYING and change %pyproject_save_files %{pypi_name} and change to %pyproject_save_files -l %{pypi_name} to "assert" that a license file is detected and properly handled. This guards against the license file "disappearing" by accident in a future package update. ===== Notes (no change required for approval) ===== - I personally think that using the %{pypi_name} macro does not meaningfully improve spec-file “reusability,” and just makes the spec harder to read by adding a level of macro indirection. I favor replacing it with the actual name (in this case, base58) everywhere it appears. However, there is nothing *objectively* wrong with using the macro, and it’s absolutely permissible. - It is not necessary or useful to number the sole Source. It would be better to just write Source: %{pypi_source base58} but again, the numbered Source0 form is not prohibited. - You can avoid repeating the description text by using a macro, e.g.: %global common_description %{expand: Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network.} %description %{common_description} […] %description -n python3-base58 %{common_description} - A man page is always desirable for a command-line tool. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages This was mentioned by rpmlint: python3-base58.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary base58 In this case, help2man generates an acceptable man page. You could add BuildRequires: help2man then, in %install: # Generate the man page in %%install rather than %%build because we need the # generated script entry point. PYTHONPATH='%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}' \ PATH="${PATH}:%{buildroot}%{_bindir}" \ help2man --no-info --output='%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/base58.1' \ --version-string='%{version}' --name='%{summary}' base58 and finally, in %files -n python3-base58, %{_mandir}/man1/base58.1* This is not required for approval, but it is a SHOULD in the guidelines, and I think you should use help2man here since it does an adequate job. ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2297640-python- base58/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. [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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-base58-2.1.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/base58-2.1.1.dist-info/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/python3-base58/COPYING [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 2214 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. [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 [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]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=120966641 [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]: 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-base58-2.1.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-base58-2.1.1-1.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/tmppn2rwfys')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-base58.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary base58 python-base58.src: E: description-line-too-long Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network. python3-base58.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network. ======================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 1 python3-base58.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary base58 python3-base58.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Base58 and Base58Check implementation compatible with what is used by the bitcoin network. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/base58/base58-2.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c5d0cb3f5b6e81e8e35da5754388ddcc6d0d14b6c6a132cb93d69ed580a7278c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c5d0cb3f5b6e81e8e35da5754388ddcc6d0d14b6c6a132cb93d69ed580a7278c Requires -------- python3-base58 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-base58: python-base58 python3-base58 python3.13-base58 python3.13dist(base58) python3dist(base58) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2297640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++ 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=2297640 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202297640%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ 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
