https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2317589 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The package is APPROVED, but please see the two suggestions, below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Suggestions ===== - Consider proposing to upstream that they remove the version bound on the uv dependency. uv<1,>=0.4.7 According to semantic versioning, uv 1.0 is no more likely to contain breaking changes than uv 0.5 is. Furthermore, the uv pip / uv venv functionality that this package uses has not seen intentional breaking changes since the initial public release of uv, and I would not expect nontrivial breaking changes in these areas in the future since the interfaces are based so closely on existing tools. - Please consider changing %pyproject_save_files tox_uv to %pyproject_save_files -l tox_uv to guard against accidental loss of the properly-indicated packaged license file in a future update. ===== Notes ===== - You have packaged the last version that supports the currently-packaged version of uv. After working through a large batch of dependency updates, I should be able to resume updating uv in the next few days. I recommend updating this package when it becomes possible to do so. - This review is based on the initial submission, but I reviewed the spec-file diff for the second submission, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2051170&action=diff, and I did not spot any issues or anything that seemed to merit doing a fresh build. ===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2317589-python-tox-uv/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages Spurious; these directories are owned by python3-libs, which this package requires via python(abi) = 3.13. [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-tox-uv-1.11.4-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/tox_uv-1.11.4.dist-info/licenses/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. [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 0 bytes in 0 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) [!]: Latest version is packaged. Later versions are blocked by a need for uv>=0.4.12. The package can be updated once the dependency is satisfied. [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124630710 (As of this writing, the s390x build was still waiting for a builder, but I did a local s390x mock-build using qemu-user-static emulation.) [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) OK: differences are only due to rpmautospec expansion. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-tox-uv-1.11.4-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-tox-uv-1.11.4-1.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/tmpdczikie8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-tox-uv.src: E: spelling-error ('virtualenv', '%description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual') python3-tox-uv.noarch: E: spelling-error ('virtualenv', '%description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual') python3-tox-uv.noarch: W: no-documentation ====================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 2 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-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-tox-uv.noarch: E: spelling-error ('virtualenv', '%description -l en_US virtualenv -> virtual') python3-tox-uv.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/tox_uv/tox_uv-1.11.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 10a6025d751108f17d8912bf177f1804ab7f9973ab39df6e599c47f7dc849c59 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10a6025d751108f17d8912bf177f1804ab7f9973ab39df6e599c47f7dc849c59 Requires -------- python3-tox-uv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(tox) < 5~~ with python3.13dist(tox) >= 4.18) (python3.13dist(uv) < 1~~ with python3.13dist(uv) >= 0.4.7) python(abi) python3.13dist(packaging) Provides -------- python3-tox-uv: python-tox-uv python3-tox-uv python3.13-tox-uv python3.13dist(tox-uv) python3dist(tox-uv) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2317589-python-tox-uv/srpm/python-tox-uv.spec 2024-10-09 11:05:34.734734182 -0400 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2317589-python-tox-uv/srpm-unpacked/python-tox-uv.spec 2024-10-08 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## 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 + Name: python-tox-uv Version: 1.11.4 @@ -72,3 +82,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Oct 09 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.11.4-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2317589 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, 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=2317589 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202317589%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
