https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171
Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(zebob.m(a)gmail.com |fedora-review?
|) |
Assignee|zebob.m(a)gmail.com |gotmax(a)e.email
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #23 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email> ---
I'll take over this review from here. You will still need to find a sponsor. I
have a couple more notes, but then, we should be good to go! Thank you for your
patience.
Notes
=====
- > URL:
https://pypi.org/project/RPi.GPIO2/
I would change this to:
URL:
https://github.com/underground-software/%{pkgname}
Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz
- You should fix the shebangs in the examples/ directory to all use
#!/usr/bin/python3. Currently, there is a mix of different shebangs in use.
```
$ rg /bin examples
examples/pwm3.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/random_usage.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/pwm2.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/callback.py:#!/usr/bin/python3
examples/button_test.py:#!/bin/env python3
examples/pwm4.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/callback2.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/output_examples.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/try_import.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/morse.py:#!/bin/env python3
examples/flash18.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/pwm1.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/input_examples.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/pwm_usage.py:#!/bin/python3
examples/event_test.py:#!/bin/python3
```
- You should add
```
%check
%py3_check_import RPi
```
as a basic smoke test and add a comment explaining why you can't run the actual
tests.
- The python3 subpackage is still improperly named. It should be named
`python3-rpi-gpio2`. Please see the Python Naming Guidelines[1] for more info.
When I suggested to use a separate `pkgname` variable, I meant to keep
`pypi_name` for referring to the upstream name (RPi.GPIO2) and add `pkgname`
for referring to the package name (rpi-gpio2). Right now, the `Recommends:
python-%{pkgname}-doc` line evaluates to `Recommends: python-RPi.GPIO2-doc`
when it should be `Recommends: python-rpi-gpio2-doc`. Adding back `%pypi_name`
and changing `%pkgname` to `rpi-gpio2` will fix this isue.
[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming
- The source package's `Provides` line should also be fully versioned.
Provides: python-rpi-gpio = %{version}-%{release}
- Please note that you cannot push this package to `f34`, because the original
package has not been retired on that branch; packages cannot be retired from
stable releases.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
Version 3". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git-
repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/1871171-python-rpi-
gpio2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-RPi.GPIO2
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
See my note above.
[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:
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/archive/v0.3.0a3/RPi.GP...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
018d400f662eeba78952a078392b599d47848662122d546b4ce01c9841e3b8e3
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
018d400f662eeba78952a078392b599d47848662122d546b4ce01c9841e3b8e3
Requires
--------
python3-RPi.GPIO2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-libgpiod
python-rpi-gpio2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
python3-RPi.GPIO2:
python-RPi.GPIO2
python3-RPi.GPIO
python3-RPi.GPIO2
python3.10-RPi.GPIO2
python3.10dist(rpi-gpio2)
python3.10dist(rpi.gpio2)
python3dist(rpi-gpio2)
python3dist(rpi.gpio2)
python-rpi-gpio2-doc:
python-rpi-gpio2-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1871171
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Ocaml, R, C/C++, fonts, Haskell,
PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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=1871171