https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320399 Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi <hiwkby@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Benson, please check my review. 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/ I think the issue above is an erroneous issue because mock logged the following message in my environment. ``` /home/mockbuilder/2320399-CoBang/results/installed_pkgs.log:195:python3-pytest-8.3.4-1.fc42.noarch 1733481384 21862014 b6fbb5e5003b229930212c5580f4d6c2 installed /home/mockbuilder/2320399-CoBang/results/installed_pkgs.log:210:python3-pytest-asyncio-0.24.0-1.fc42.noarch 1733267416 151017 f97e5dd6f5b42d3d1b7b16f061401e6c installed /home/mockbuilder/2320399-CoBang/results/installed_pkgs.log:211:python3-pytest-console-scripts-1.4.1-7.fc41.noarch 1721445792 76967 8f3cdd2c84d1b311515be9a00b10bef4 installed /home/mockbuilder/2320399-CoBang/results/installed_pkgs.log:212:python3-pytest-cov-5.0.0-1.fc42.noarch 1731351635 167473 1cac6d90214e1be5f6cd6fc7be9f59e0 installed ``` - Should this package provide 'python3-cobang'? This package contains the following files. Please consider adding a virtual provide according to python3-cobang if it would help users find the package. ``` /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/cobang /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/cobang/app.py ...(snip)... ``` https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_application_naming In addition, please consider that you should run tests of 'python3-cobang' in %check section if the tests can be run. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests - Should this package require 'python3-zbar'? app.py probably requires the python module above but no requires tag in the spec file. Please recheck the spec file. - Rpmlint errors could be ignored. Packagers sometimes explicitly add "Requires:" if dependencies could not be resolved automatically. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_requires Explicit requires are needed in this package's case because the upstream does not provide PyPI package and pure python scripts do not provide a list of the shared libraries they require. Therefore the following rpmlint errors could be ignored. ``` CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libndp CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2 CoBang.noarch: E: devel-dependency python3-kiss-headers ``` ===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mockbuilder/2320399-CoBang/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. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [?]: 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. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 8844 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. [?]: 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 [-]: 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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== 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: CoBang-0.14.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm CoBang-0.14.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpw3e0vxzk')] checks: 32, packages: 2 CoBang.noarch: E: spelling-error ('barcode', '%description -l en_US barcode -> bar code, bar-code, barcarole') CoBang.src: E: spelling-error ('barcode', '%description -l en_US barcode -> bar code, bar-code, barcarole') CoBang.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cobang CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libndp CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2 CoBang.noarch: E: devel-dependency python3-kiss-headers 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.6 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 CoBang.noarch: E: spelling-error ('barcode', '%description -l en_US barcode -> bar code, bar-code, barcarole') CoBang.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cobang CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhandy CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libndp CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpwquality CoBang.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency librsvg2 CoBang.noarch: E: devel-dependency python3-kiss-headers 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hongquan/CoBang/archive/v0.14.1/CoBang-0.14.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 673ec680fc23b7a22a7dab29729f383b8e5fb47b8d445867957a3bdb1dea9fc5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 673ec680fc23b7a22a7dab29729f383b8e5fb47b8d445867957a3bdb1dea9fc5 Requires -------- CoBang (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh NetworkManager-libnm glib2 gstreamer1-plugins-good gstreamer1-plugins-good-gtk gtk3 hicolor-icon-theme libhandy libndp libpwquality librsvg2 polkit python(abi) python3-gobject python3-kiss-headers python3-logbook python3-pillow python3-requests python3-single-version zbar Provides -------- CoBang: CoBang application() application(vn.hoabinh.quan.CoBang.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(vn.hoabinh.quan.CoBang.appdata.xml) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2320399 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, 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=2320399 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202320399%23c1 -- _______________________________________________ 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
