Bug 1756907

 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:	PyPI front-end for upt
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group.


Issues:
=======
- There are installation errors (see below).
- The package has tests, run them in `%check`.
- You defined `Summary` twice.
- I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under `Requires`.


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

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


===== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
     "Eclipse Public License (v1.0) Common Development and Distribution
     License (v1.0) Boost Software License (v1.0) Aladdin Free Public
     License CeCILL-B License GNU Affero General Public License (v3)",
     "Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-
     pypi/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).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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:
[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
[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.
[-]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.19 starting (python version = 3.7.4)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.19
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.19
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-pypi/results/python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-pypi/results/python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

(In reply to Ege Güneş from comment #2)
> This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group.
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - There are installation errors (see below).
> - The package has tests, run them in `%check`.
> - You defined `Summary` twice.
> - I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under
> `Requires`.


- Install fails because upt is not available (I explicitly added the Requires tag, thanks to your comment, even if the Python dependency generator did its job)
- The tests will also fail as it also upt. I have added some conditional tests in my SPECs (to disable them until all dependencies are in Fedora repositories).
- Defined twice because of sub-package for python3, not sure if I could remove it (see the example from the guideline [1])
- Correct, I modified all my SPEC to have something more coherent

Thank you for your time!


[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_python_spec_file

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_the_python_provide_macro
> 
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
> Summary:	PyPI front-end for upt
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

Thanks, fixed!

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-pypi.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm

Package approved.


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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
     "Eclipse Public License (v1.0) Common Development and Distribution
     License (v1.0) Boost Software License (v1.0) Aladdin Free Public
     License CeCILL-B License GNU Affero General Public License (v3)",
     "Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-upt-pypi/review-
     python-upt-pypi/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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 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:
[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
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

FEDORA-2019-ac4c6ec06e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ac4c6ec06e

FEDORA-2019-22dfe2cd7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22dfe2cd7d

python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.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-ac4c6ec06e

python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-22dfe2cd7d

python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.