https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2322084 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The package is APPROVED, but please see the suggestions on running tests and handling the license file in the “Notes” below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Notes: ====== Removing test data from the archive before uploading to the lookaside cache is *certainly* the right thing to do. The author claims a fair-use justification for distributing data files based on proprietary websites for testing in https://github.com/hhursev/recipe-scrapers/blob/main/tests/test_data/LICENSE.md, but even if accurate, this doesn’t meet Fedora’s standards. The script appears to be correct, and I don’t see any traces of proprietary test data in the submitted tarball. While it would have been easier to just package from the PyPI sdist, which doesn’t contain test data, your approach has the advantage that you still have the tests themselves, and can run a few tests that don’t require the data corpus. Plus, there is less risk of accidentally uploading the corpus if upstream includes it in a future sdist for some reason. ---- I would suggest that you could run the tests more easily (and run a few more tests) if you restore the removed test_data directory like this, in %prep or even in %check: # Running the tests requires a test data directory, even though we removed its # contents. mkdir -p tests/test_data (Alternatively, you could adjust prepare.sh to still remove everything from test_data, but leave the directory in place.) Then, rather than individually running particular test modules, you could just do this: # The skipped test requires test data files that we removed. %pytest -k 'not (TestMainMethods and test_online_mode_html_retrieval)' ---- You have two copies of the license file, both marked as %license: $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-recipe-scrapers-15.2.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/recipe_scrapers-15.2.1.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-recipe-scrapers/LICENSE This is allowed but unnecessary. You can change %pyproject_save_files recipe_scrapers -L to %pyproject_save_files recipe_scrapers -l and remove %license LICENSE from the %files section. I though that %pyproject_save_files recipe_scrapers -L would fail if %{pyproject_files} contained a properly marked license file, but I seem to have misunderstood it: it only means “don’t fail in the future if the default changes to -l and there is still no properly marked license file in %{pyproject_files}.” 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 diagnostic is spurious; the package build with pytest-8.3.3. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 419 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2322084-python-recipe- scrapers/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 This is spurious, a fedora-review bug. These directories are owned by the appropriate Python packages, upon which this package depends. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 69510 bytes in 7 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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. (Available tests pass.) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments The script to produce the tarball is necessary and appears correct; see the Notes section at the top of this review. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: (%define is from expansion of rpmautospec macros) [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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-recipe-scrapers-15.2.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-recipe-scrapers-15.2.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpw4egmr0u')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-recipe-scrapers.src: E: spelling-error ('webpages', '%description -l en_US webpages -> web pages, web-pages, passages') python3-recipe-scrapers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('webpages', '%description -l en_US webpages -> web pages, web-pages, passages') python-recipe-scrapers.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: recipe-scrapers-15.2.1-clean.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 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-recipe-scrapers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('webpages', '%description -l en_US webpages -> web pages, web-pages, passages') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s Requires -------- python3-recipe-scrapers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.13dist(extruct) python3.13dist(isodate) Provides -------- python3-recipe-scrapers: python-recipe-scrapers python3-recipe-scrapers python3.13-recipe-scrapers python3.13dist(recipe-scrapers) python3dist(recipe-scrapers) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L rs-deps/ -b 2322084 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ben/fedora/review/rs-deps/python3-extruct-0.17.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm -- 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=2322084 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202322084%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
