Bug 1695362

The .spec file doesn't match the one included in the .src.rpm.

You can simplify the %check section like this:

--- python-metaextract.spec.orig	2019-04-03 17:31:15.010362399 +0200
+++ python-metaextract.spec	2019-04-03 17:51:39.050067347 +0200
@@ -53,8 +53,7 @@
 %py3_install
 
 %check
-export PYTHONPATH=$(pwd):$PYTHONPATH
-py.test-%{python3_version} -v metaextract
+%{__python3} -m pytest -v metaextract
 
 %files -n python3-%{srcname}
 %doc README.rst


Also, do we really need

BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-runner}

instead of

BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}

?

The proper license tag is:

--- python-metaextract.spec.orig	2019-04-03 17:31:15.010362399 +0200
+++ python-metaextract.spec	2019-04-03 17:58:16.306107831 +0200
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 Release:        1%{?dist}
 Summary:        get metadata for python modules
 
-License:        Apache-2.0
+License:        ASL 2.0
 URL:            https://github.com/toabctl/metaextract
 Source0:        %{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
 
cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

(In reply to Georg Sauthoff from comment #2)
> You can simplify the %check section like this:
> 
> --- python-metaextract.spec.orig	2019-04-03 17:31:15.010362399 +0200
> +++ python-metaextract.spec	2019-04-03 17:51:39.050067347 +0200
> @@ -53,8 +53,7 @@
>  %py3_install
>  
>  %check
> -export PYTHONPATH=$(pwd):$PYTHONPATH
> -py.test-%{python3_version} -v metaextract
> +%{__python3} -m pytest -v metaextract
>  
>  %files -n python3-%{srcname}
>  %doc README.rst
> 
> 
> Also, do we really need
> 
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest-runner}
> 
> instead of
> 
> BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}
> 
> ?

Unfortunately metaextract requires pytest-runner and not BuildRequiring it causes the tests to fail.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-metaextract/raw/master/f/python-metaextract.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/defolos/devel/fedora-29-x86_64/00877797-python-metaextract/python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.src.rpm


I've fixed the license and the discrepancy between the spec in the srpm & the Spec URL.

Ok, just a side node: using a more stable URL has advantages for review purposes - e.g. https://pagure.io/python-metaextract/raw/d7cce8e350cb5a4a979f2c1329b52259391dc19a/f/python-metaextract.spec or a link into a specific copr build for that .spec, as well.

This package uses an archive from the project's github repo instead of one from the project's PyPi package - the latter one doesn't include the test cases.

There are some warnings from fedora-review you can fix:

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
=> i.e. the doc package doesn't seem to include the license file/a license section
[ ]: 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.
=> the doc package is perhaps overkill in this case as it isn't much more than a very short readme
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
=> see below

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python-metaextract-doc-1.0.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.src.rpm
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C get metadata for python modules
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metaextract
python-metaextract-doc.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
python-metaextract.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C get metadata for python modules
python-metaextract.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.


Especially, the version in the changelog entry and the capitalization, e.g.:

Get metadata for Python modules

Metaextract is a tool to collect ...


Regarding the pytest-runner dependency - I changed it to `BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}` and it builds fine in my Fedora 29 environment (where pytest-runner isn't installed: 'package python3-pytest-runner is not installed'), i.e. all the pytest tests are executed and succeed.

(The tests just fail when I remove the `export PYTHONPATH...` line - probably because the unittests invoke via subprocess `python3 setup.py ...` which relies on that path.)

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-metaextract/raw/66d98c6fde4e52e01b94fa04698587fd798d61cd/f/python-metaextract.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/defolos/devel/fedora-29-x86_64/00878262-python-metaextract/python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.src.rpm

I've fixed the %changelog, the Summary and added %license to the doc subpackage (I'd like to keep it in case upstream decides to expand the docs).

> I changed it to `BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}`

Doesn't work for me, when doing that %py3_install fails because pytest-runner is explicitly required in setup.py

I approve this package.

I based my review on the Fedora packaging Guidelines and the relevant packaging guides.

I noticed that the capitalization in summary/description isn't complete, but this is just a small thing:

--- python-metaextract.spec.orig	2019-04-05 12:03:04.639424265 +0200
+++ python-metaextract.spec	2019-04-05 12:03:26.524587497 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 %global srcname metaextract
 
-%global descr metaextract is a tool to collect metadata about a python \
+%global descr Metaextract is a tool to collect metadata about a Python \
 module. For example you may have a sdist tarball from the Python Package Index \
 and you want to know it's dependencies. metaextract can collect theses \
 dependencies. The tool was first developed in py2pack but is now it's own \
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 Name:           python-%{srcname}
 Version:        1.0.5
 Release:        1%{?dist}
-Summary:        Metaextract is a tool to collect metadata for python modules
+Summary:        Metaextract is a tool to collect metadata for Python modules
 
 License:        ASL 2.0
 URL:            https://github.com/toabctl/metaextract



Attached below the output of fedora-review annotated with some annotations (+, -, ?).


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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail,
[-] = Not applicable (manually reviewed)
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
[+] = Passed after manual review



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gms/program/copr-fedora/python-
     metaextract/review/review-python-metaextract/licensecheck.txt
[+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[+]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[+]: 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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[+]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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.
[+]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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.
[+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[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.
[+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-metaextract , python-metaextract-doc
[+]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[+]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[+]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[+]: 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-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python-metaextract-doc-1.0.5-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
          python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29.src.rpm
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdist -> dist, sadist, s dist
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metaextract
python-metaextract.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdist -> dist, sadist, s dist
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
python-metaextract-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/toabctl/metaextract <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sdist -> dist, sadist, s dist
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/toabctl/metaextract <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python3-metaextract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary metaextract
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
python-metaextract-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-metaextract (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python-metaextract-doc:
    python-metaextract-doc

python3-metaextract:
    python3-metaextract
    python3.7dist(metaextract)
    python3dist(metaextract)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/toabctl/metaextract/archive/1.0.5/python-metaextract-1.0.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 218eb4cd11c6a750513e1139e3e5869a8142eced54110d0e5d1b534d22f81df8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 218eb4cd11c6a750513e1139e3e5869a8142eced54110d0e5d1b534d22f81df8


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-metaextract
Buildroot used: fedora-29-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Thanks for the approval, I've also fixed the capitalization.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-metaextract

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3dfdeb72d3

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3dfdeb72d3

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4c19bf6c09

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6b3b9670f2

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6b3b9670f2

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-4c19bf6c09

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-metaextract-1.0.5-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.