https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299129 --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Looking good. I noticed it bundles fonts, octicons (MIT licensed). I guess we should at least note the bundling in the spec? Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/2299129-python-grip/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/man, /usr/bin, /usr, /usr/share/doc [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib, /usr/bin, /usr, /usr/share/doc [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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 46186 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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: [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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ bundles octicons: https://github.com/primer/octicons/ Also under the MIT license, so should be OK, but perhaps we need to note the bundling in the spec? [-]: 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. ^ All 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. [-]: 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]: 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) ^ Using rpmautospec, we're fine. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ^ These are OK. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-grip-4.6.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-grip-4.6.2-1.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/tmpzhl477jt')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-grip.src: E: spelling-error ('readme', 'Summary(en_US) readme -> reamed, remade, read me') python-grip.src: E: spelling-error ('readme', '%description -l en_US readme -> reamed, remade, read me') python3-grip.noarch: E: spelling-error ('readme', 'Summary(en_US) readme -> reamed, remade, read me') python3-grip.noarch: E: spelling-error ('readme', '%description -l en_US readme -> reamed, remade, read me') python-grip.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: unvendor_six.patch ^ These are OK. ============================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 15 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.4 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-grip.noarch: E: spelling-error ('readme', 'Summary(en_US) readme -> reamed, remade, read me') python3-grip.noarch: E: spelling-error ('readme', '%description -l en_US readme -> reamed, remade, read me') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/joeyespo/grip/archive/ed3adea5a2f32af8062a97917e26a61dfe9fb589/grip-ed3adea5a2f32af8062a97917e26a61dfe9fb589.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c14c57b0dc6bf58a1a67a1303a39a7f2436b130214e21eb3a9ecc850e4820107 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c14c57b0dc6bf58a1a67a1303a39a7f2436b130214e21eb3a9ecc850e4820107 Requires -------- python3-grip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(docopt) python3.13dist(flask) python3.13dist(markdown) python3.13dist(path-and-address) python3.13dist(pygments) python3.13dist(requests) python3.13dist(six) python3.13dist(werkzeug) Provides -------- python3-grip: python-grip python3-grip python3.13-grip python3.13dist(grip) python3dist(grip) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2299129-python-grip/srpm/python-grip.spec 2024-07-30 13:32:38.539226932 +0100 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2299129-python-grip/srpm-unpacked/python-grip.spec 2024-07-21 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.6.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + 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 + %global pypi_name grip @@ -83,3 +93,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sun Jul 21 2024 Sandro <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 4.6.2-1 +- Initial package +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2299129 --mock-options=--config-opts=mirrored=false Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, R, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, Java, PHP, SugarActivity 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=2299129 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202299129%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
