https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cmdr@supakeen.com

--- Comment #1 from Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw --- *** Bug 2106138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

Felix Kaechele felix@kaechele.ca changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |felix@kaechele.ca Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #3 from Felix Kaechele felix@kaechele.ca --- It seems that the src rpm linked above wasn't generated from the spec file. fedora-review won't run as the pinnwand.service file is missing in the src rpm.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1984016 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1984016&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6252769 to 6317508

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #7 from Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw --- [fedora-review-service-build]

recheck -- updated srpm and spec

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6321205 (succeeded)

Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

Felix Kaechele felix@kaechele.ca changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(felix@kaechele.ca | |) |

--- Comment #11 from Felix Kaechele felix@kaechele.ca --- Hey there, sorry for the delay.

Here we go:

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - systemd_post is not invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in pinnwand See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets - Package needs to own /etc/pinnwand. Add %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} to %files section. - Latest version is 1.5.0, package is 1.4.0. It seems 1.5.0 will solve a few issues that I'd have otherwise pointed out in a review (such as relaxing upper bounds for dependencies). - %_sourcedir is being used incorrectly. Instead of "Source: pinnwand.service" enumerate the source files (e.g. Source1:) and refer to them via %{SOURCE1}.

===== 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". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/felix/PackageReview/pinnwand/2229857-pinnwand/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/pinnwand [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/pinnwand [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. [!]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 3539 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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

===== 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. [!]: 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: [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: pinnwand-1.4.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm pinnwand-1.4.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ============================================================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpo92x_0qm')] checks: 31, packages: 2

pinnwand.spec:42: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR pinnwand.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pinnwand ============================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.7 s ==============================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 31, packages: 1

pinnwand.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pinnwand 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/supakeen/pinnwand/archive/v1.4.0/pinnwand-1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d12016bc2b8f6568d10d378c7761f615145f551334637cdaa6bc1fa35553330c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d12016bc2b8f6568d10d378c7761f615145f551334637cdaa6bc1fa35553330c

Requires -------- pinnwand (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.12dist(click) < 9~~ with python3.12dist(click) >= 8.1) (python3.12dist(pygments) < 3~~ with python3.12dist(pygments) >= 2.13) (python3.12dist(pygments-better-html) < 0.2~~ with python3.12dist(pygments-better-html) >= 0.1.4) (python3.12dist(sqlalchemy) < 2~~ with python3.12dist(sqlalchemy) >= 1.4) (python3.12dist(token-bucket) < 0.4~~ with python3.12dist(token-bucket) >= 0.3) (python3.12dist(tornado) < 7~~ with python3.12dist(tornado) >= 6.2) /usr/bin/python3 config(pinnwand) python(abi) python3.12dist(docutils)

Provides -------- pinnwand: config(pinnwand) pinnwand python3.12dist(pinnwand) python3dist(pinnwand)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2229857 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1995854 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995854&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6321205 to 6575038

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #16 from Felix Kaechele felix@kaechele.ca --- Thanks for the update. A few more notes:

Referring to https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...:

- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/

This is seems to be a bug in fedora-review. The package actually requires "python3.12dist(sqlalchemy) < 2.0.15~~" which resolves to python3-sqlalchemy-1.4.49-2.fc39 at least on my system. It seems this was your intention, so this is not an actual issue.

- 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. Note: License file AUTHORS.rst is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

It would make sense to include this file in %license as it creates the reference to the main author.

Other notes:

- You didn't enumerate the Source files explicitly. This technically works, but I've never seen it done that way. I assume it may break when the order or number of source references is changed, at which point another file may be copied into the destination systemd unit file. The RPM documentation just mentions that numbers may be added but doesn't expand on whether it's required.

- I'm a bit confused by the note in the spec file:

# NOTE(neil): 2023-10-26 pinnwand 1.4.0 wants 0.19, but Fedora has 20.X # at the same time, 1.5.0 wants sqlalchemy >= 2, but Fedora has not upgraded to # it yet. See: # https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sqlalchemy/pull-request/16

I assume the 0.19 and 20.x (should also be 0.20.x) refers to the docutils sed patch that was removed in the 1.5.0 version of the spec. It was probably removed in error, as the resulting package cannot be installed without it due to a missing dependency on python3.12dist(docutils) >= 0.20.1.

- Thanks for filing https://github.com/supakeen/pinnwand/pull/211. You can either carry the sed patch you currently have in the spec file or you can use a neat trick I like to use to reference the pull request as a Patch in the spec file like so: Patch1: https://github.com/supakeen/pinnwand/pull/211.patch Your choice. Both are acceptable to me until the next release with the fix comes out. I like patch reference method because it provides a reference back to where this change stands with upstream. FYI, If you use the patch you'll have to commit that file (211.patch) to dist-git alongside the spec file once the package is approved, mock will not download the file from the URL while building. The %autosetup macro already contains -p1 so it should pick up and apply the patch file automatically.

- Your changelog contains a typo. The last message should probably say "Update to 1.5.0", not "Update to 1.4.0". Feel free to remove the changelog entirely and replace it with %autochangelog from rpmautospec (https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html) and the Release tag with %autorelease (which is now the recommended way of doing it: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_...). Your changelog and release numbers will then automatically be generated from the Git commits and their commit messages you use when commit changes to the package to dist-git. Saves you one step when maintaining the package.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2007837 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2007837&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6575038 to 6873307

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #20 from Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw --- Hi Felix,

Will you be able to help me complete this review?

--Neil

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|felix@kaechele.ca |nobody@fedoraproject.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags|fedora-review? |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857

--- Comment #23 from Susi Lehtola susi.lehtola@iki.fi --- Tests fail in rawhide

=================================== FAILURES =================================== _____________________________ test_guess_language ______________________________ def test_guess_language() -> None: # python

  assert (

utility.guess_language( """ import math math.ceil(0.5) """ ) == "python" ) E AssertionError: assert 'mojo' == 'python' E E - python E + mojo test/test_utility.py:12: AssertionError =============================== warnings summary ===============================