https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246454 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Licensing is strange. I see the project contains two different licenses but how it applies to the source code (which is which) - I can't find. You should clarify it with upstream eventually. I can't find any 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-mock is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ^^^ I don't see it as a blocker. You should propose switching to built-in unittest.mock moduel which is included in Python since version 3.3. ===== 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 (ASL 2.0 and MIT). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. See my note about licensing above. I believe we should clarify it with upstream eventually but I don't see it as a blocker. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [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 n ot contain systemd file(s). [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 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. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [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]: 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 3535 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). [?]: I didn't test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (git snapshot). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and almost all tests pass on (some tests fail on obscure arches) . [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-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc42.noarch.rpm python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.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/tmp86dlc7h7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') ================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 1.5 s ================================================================================================= ^^^ false positives. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DissectMalware/pyxlsb2/archive/0a1ff1be329aa282ecbc347ff44fc6c07351685b/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0a1ff1b.tar.gz#/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-20220509-0a1ff1b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 59fdeba1eb81af63ed2414d27e2ea38c973d6a4c0240b2f827692063ed5c5762 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 59fdeba1eb81af63ed2414d27e2ea38c973d6a4c0240b2f827692063ed5c5762 Requires -------- python3-pyxlsb2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyxlsb2: python-pyxlsb2 python3-pyxlsb2 python3.13-pyxlsb2 python3.13dist(pyxlsb2) python3dist(pyxlsb2) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246454 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, C/C++, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246454 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246454%23c13 -- _______________________________________________ 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
