https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106171
Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |gotmax(a)e.email
Flags| |fedora-review?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
packages/rfc3986_validator.py
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
%{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py
and
%pycached %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py
are redundant. Just keep the %pycached line. This will also be fixed by using
%pyproject_files.
Ctrl+F for NOTE to see my interspersed comments.
===== 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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git-
repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python-
rfc3986-validator/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
NOTE: %check is missing, which is required by the Python Packaging guidelines,
amongst other issues.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
NOTE: No %check.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
NOTE: noarch package
[!]: %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).
NOTE: rpmautospec is used, which causes these differences.
See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
python-rfc3986-validator.src: W: strange-permission
python-rfc3986-validator.spec 600
python3-rfc3986-validator.noarch: W: no-documentation
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/naimetti/rfc3986-validator/archive/v0.1.0/rfc3986-vali...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8f325d99c3aafaadfdbb3082145fa04a116dde5e39dc1eb2b24a25aa87307bef
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8f325d99c3aafaadfdbb3082145fa04a116dde5e39dc1eb2b24a25aa87307bef
Requires
--------
python3-rfc3986-validator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
Provides
--------
python3-rfc3986-validator:
python-rfc3986-validator
python3-rfc3986-validator
python3.11-rfc3986-validator
python3.11dist(rfc3986-validator)
python3dist(rfc3986-validator)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
---
/home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python-rfc3986-validator/srpm/python-rfc3986-validator.spec
2022-07-11 20:01:02.544266380 -0500
+++
/home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python-rfc3986-validator/srpm-unpacked/python-rfc3986-validator.spec
2022-07-11 17:26:47.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-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*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
%global srcname rfc3986-validator
%global slugname rfc3986_validator
@@ -50,3 +59,4 @@
%changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Jul 11 2022 chedi toueiti <chedi.toueiti(a)gmail.com> 0.1.0-1
+- initial commit
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106171
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Java, C/C++, fonts, Perl,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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=2106171