https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280062
Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #15 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net> ---
The package is APPROVED as-is, with a couple of recommendations below:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Notes (no change required for approval) =====
- As noted in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2280062#c14, it might
be a good idea to backport
https://github.com/asciimoo/exrex/pull/69 as a
patch to fix several instances of SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence.
- A spelling error was detected by rpmlint:
python-exrex.src: E: spelling-error ('maching', '%description -l en_US
maching -> making, macing, aching')
python3-exrex.noarch: E: spelling-error ('maching', '%description -l
en_US
maching -> making, macing, aching')
It looks like this was introduced while editing the spec file and is not
present in the upstream description. Please fix the typo when you import the
package.
===== 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 Affero General Public License
v3.0", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No
copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/Downloads/review/2280062-python-exrex/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12,
/usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/__pycache__,
/usr/share/man, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages,
/usr/share/man/man1, /usr/bin
These diagnostics are spurious (known fedora-review bug).
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc, /usr,
/usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
packages/__pycache__, /usr/share/man, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
packages, /usr/share/man/man1, /usr/bin
These diagnostics are spurious (known fedora-review bug).
[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.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4687 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.
[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
===== 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]: Package functions as described.
(tests pass)
[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.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117683091
[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: python3-exrex-0.11.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
python-exrex-0.11.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
===========================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
==========================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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/tmpax4bpv2u')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
python-exrex.src: E: spelling-error ('maching', '%description -l en_US
maching
-> making, macing, aching')
python3-exrex.noarch: E: spelling-error ('maching', '%description -l en_US
maching -> making, macing, aching')
====================================================== 2 packages and 0
specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s
=====================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 1
python3-exrex.noarch: E: spelling-error ('maching', '%description -l en_US
maching -> making, macing, aching')
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/asciimoo/exrex/archive/v0.11.0/exrex-0.11.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
2df167ef3beed2f41d9e539de763332e6d357fd214a06294ac5f4302cc6609f4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2df167ef3beed2f41d9e539de763332e6d357fd214a06294ac5f4302cc6609f4
Requires
--------
python3-exrex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
Provides
--------
python3-exrex:
python-exrex
python3-exrex
python3.12-exrex
python3.12dist(exrex)
python3dist(exrex)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2280062 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++,
PHP
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=2280062
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...