https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307642 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Few notes: * I believe spec-file should be named as python-reflink.spec. * "BuildRequires: python3dist(cffi)" listed twice. * "MIT license" is not a valid value for %license field. Just use "MIT". * Description field doesn't look right. " Python reflink :alt: Documentation Status". Please comment/address these ones and we'll finish it. Apart from that I don't see any other issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ^^^ this one is a false positive. You may disregard it. - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT license'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ^^^ See my comment above. - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: reflink.spec should be python-reflink.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ^^^ See my comment above. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: No development (unversioned) .so files. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. See my comment above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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 does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: 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 2473 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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 python3-reflink [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.2.2). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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: Bad spec filename: /home/petro/rpmbuild/SPECS/2307642-reflink/srpm-unpacked/reflink.spec See: (this test has no URL) ^^^ See my comment above. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-reflink-0.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm python-reflink-doc-0.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm python-reflink-debugsource-0.2.2-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm python-reflink-0.2.2-1.fc42.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/tmpgh9g5kvy')] checks: 32, packages: 4 python-reflink-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized reflink documentation python-reflink-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary reflink.spec:55: W: macro-in-comment %check reflink.spec:56: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} python-reflink.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-reflink.src: W: invalid-license MIT license python-reflink-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python-reflink-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python3-reflink.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/darwin.c python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/linux.c python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/win32.c python-reflink.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-reflink.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary =================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 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: 3 python-reflink-doc.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized reflink documentation python-reflink-doc.x86_64: E: no-binary python-reflink-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python-reflink-doc.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python3-reflink.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT license python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/darwin.c python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/linux.c python3-reflink.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/win32.c python3-reflink.x86_64: W: description-shorter-than-summary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings, 12 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-reflink: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/reflink/_backend.abi3.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/r/reflink/reflink-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 882375ee7319275ae5f6a6a1287406365dac1e9643b91ad10e5187d3f84253bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 882375ee7319275ae5f6a6a1287406365dac1e9643b91ad10e5187d3f84253bd Requires -------- python3-reflink (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.13dist(cffi) python3dist(cffi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-reflink-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-reflink-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-reflink: python-reflink python3-reflink python3-reflink(x86-64) python3.13-reflink python3.13dist(reflink) python3dist(reflink) python-reflink-doc: python-reflink-doc python-reflink-doc(x86-64) python-reflink-debugsource: python-reflink-debugsource python-reflink-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2307642 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, 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=2307642 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202307642%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
