https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331811 Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx URL|https://pypi.org/project/%{ | |pypi_name}/ | --- Comment #6 from Jeremy Cline <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Bala, It looks like the review service is unhappy because it's downloading the SRPM from your URL and it's not actually an SRPM. This is probably because it's GitHub's web page and you need to provide the link to the raw file. There's a little "View Raw" button which has the link to the actual file, and using that should make the review service happy. For example: Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/balakreddy/packaging/e37dfdae3fcb1729fa3a4cfd45d4a2024322a1dc/python-fedora-image-uploader-messages.spec SRPM: https://github.com/balakreddy/packaging/raw/e37dfdae3fcb1729fa3a4cfd45d4a2024322a1dc/python-fedora-image-uploader-messages-1.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Which links to the raw spec and SRPM files for the current commit. I've manually run the `fedora-review` tool on the specfile and my notes and the full review are below. Since this is your first package, as part of this process you'll need a package sponsor (as you've probably seen in the new packager documentation at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#get_sponsored). I am, of course, happy to sponsor you. As part of that, I'd like you to become familiar with the packaging guidelines and review process by performing a few non-binding package reviews yourself. There's a list of packages in need of review here: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html. I recommend starting with a language you're already familiar with and trying one you're less familiar with next to get a sense of the various guidelines which vary by language. Please link to your reviews here. - The package Summary is a little unclear; the first sentence from the Description should be used. - For this review request, the title should be "<package name> - <summary>" rather than "<package name> - <description>" - rpmlint is unhappy with the length of the description line. You can safely line-wrap it to something like this: %global _description %{expand: AMQP messages emitted by the fedora-image-uploader package. Consumer can use this package to validate messages against a schema.} Other than that, the specfile looks to be in good shape. Full review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/package-reviews/review-python-fedora-image-uploader- messages/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 [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. [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 163 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. [-]: 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: [x]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-fedora-image-uploader-messages-1.2.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-fedora-image-uploader-messages-1.2.0-1.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/tmpwzyvrxjd')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-fedora-image-uploader-messages.src: E: description-line-too-long AMQP messages emitted by the fedora-image-uploader package. Consumer can use this package to validate messages against a schema. python3-fedora-image-uploader-messages.noarch: E: description-line-too-long AMQP messages emitted by the fedora-image-uploader package. Consumer can use this package to validate messages against a schema. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 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-fedora-image-uploader-messages.noarch: E: description-line-too-long AMQP messages emitted by the fedora-image-uploader package. Consumer can use this package to validate messages against a schema. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/fedora_image_uploader_messages/fedora_image_uploader_messages-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7aa144c73621cbd6d730be1a58184e69f8fc7e1f1c4386bfb1cfabe6905593f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7aa144c73621cbd6d730be1a58184e69f8fc7e1f1c4386bfb1cfabe6905593f Requires -------- python3-fedora-image-uploader-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging) Provides -------- python3-fedora-image-uploader-messages: python-fedora-image-uploader-messages python3-fedora-image-uploader-messages python3.13-fedora-image-uploader-messages python3.13dist(fedora-image-uploader-messages) python3dist(fedora-image-uploader-messages) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jcline/package-reviews/python-fedora-image-uploader-messages.spec 2024-12-12 15:26:28.203944783 -0500 +++ /home/jcline/package-reviews/review-python-fedora-image-uploader-messages/srpm-unpacked/python-fedora-image-uploader-messages.spec 2024-12-09 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## 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 fedora-image-uploader-messages %global tarball_name fedora_image_uploader_messages @@ -50,3 +60,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Tue Dec 10 2024 John Doe <packager@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.2.0-1 +- 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 -n python-fedora-image-uploader-messages Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, 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=2331811 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202331811%23c6 -- _______________________________________________ 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
