https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930948
Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> ---
Since I no longer remeber anything from thsi review :D I've decided to check my
previous concerns one by one. Inlined:
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1)
The license tag is "License: GPLv2 and MIT", I believe it
should be
"License: GPLv2+ and GPLv2 and MIT".
OK.
It appears that some packages can be installed without the %license
file
installed. Notably python-%{pkgname}-common, python-%{pkgname}-bash and
python-%{pkgname}-examples.
OK.
Real rpmlint issues:
python3-avocado.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/avocado/core/nrunner.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3
python3-avocado.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst docs/source/quickstart/index.rst
See yourself:
$ file /usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst
/usr/share/doc/python3-avocado/README.rst: broken symbolic link to
docs/source/quickstart/index.rst
python-avocado.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog:
Thu Feb 19 2021 Merlin Mathesius <mmathesi(a)redhat.com> - 82.0-2
OK.
Group tag is not supposed to be used:
Group: Development/Tools
OK.
%{python_provide} SHOULD not be used. Remove it or replace with
%py_provides
if appropriate. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
#_the_py_provides_macro
OK.
The %check sections repeatedly runs `%{__python3} setup.py develop
--user`.
This can backfire for builds outside of mock. Is does not appear to be
necessary.
OK.
I also suggest to "hide" the section in the conditional, so
it is not
present in build.log when built without tests.
OK.
Some packages have duplicated and/or suspicious requires:
python3-avocado:
...
python3-pycdlib -> this is missing in upstream metadata, why is it
required?
This one is still present. All the other manual requires on Python packages
seem to be dropped.
My question stands: Why is this required and not part of upstream metadata?
Suggestions:
============
Switch to HTTPS URL:
URL:
http://avocado-framework.github.io/
OK.
Update/remove old conditionals like:
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 30 || 0%{?rhel}
%if (0%{?fedora} && 0%{?fedora} < 29) || 0%{?rhel}
OK.
Replace %{__make} with %make_build:
%{__make} man -> %make_build man
OK.
Replace %{__python3} with %{python3}.
OK.
Replace %{__rm}, %{__mv}, %{__ln_s}, %{__mkdir}, %{__cp} etc. with
rm, mv,
ln -s, mkdir, cp etc.
OK.
Opinionated suggestion: The spec file somewhat arbitrarily(?) uses
"avacado", "%{srcname}" and "%{pkgname}". I'd stick to
"avocado" for better
readability, I don't expect the name of the project to be updated so often
to justify this complexity.
OK.
Generally, all concerns except python3-pycdlib were fixed (and that is not a
blocker). I'm going to assume that no new problems were introduced. All the
packages built in your copr are installable.
Hence, 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