Bug 1812190

Taking this review.

Jochen, could you please provide a "raw" URL for the spec file? fedora-review cannot process the one you put in currently.

Sure, no problem!

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/brejoc/teampulls/b03722948cc0db14e21b31f864da6b8117ef1fc4/packaging/Fedora/teampulls.spec

Some basic review notes:

> Summary:        teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github

This summary should be simplified to something like "CLI tool that lists pull requests from GitHub"

> Source0:        https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

You may choose to use %{pypi_source} instead here, like so:

Source0:        %{pypi_source}

To note, the %{pypi_source} macro is documented here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi

(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5)
> To note, the %{pypi_source} macro is documented here:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_source_files_from_pypi

Thanks! I've just pushed an update: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/brejoc/teampulls/b20e9bccd093401011db684a63b1c11d27bd7c6e/packaging/Fedora/teampulls.spec

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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/makerpm/1812190-teampulls/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.
[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]: %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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== 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.
[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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: teampulls-0.2.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          teampulls-0.2.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
teampulls.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip
teampulls.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github
teampulls.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls
teampulls.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary teampulls
teampulls.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip
teampulls.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github
teampulls.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
teampulls.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip
teampulls.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github
teampulls.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls
teampulls.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/brejoc/teampulls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
teampulls.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary teampulls
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/teampulls/teampulls-0.2.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fa8b6786296b55d28dec1097a69e4051f46f64b333c8b00043bcdcccf22ad284
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa8b6786296b55d28dec1097a69e4051f46f64b333c8b00043bcdcccf22ad284


Requires
--------
teampulls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    config(teampulls)
    python(abi)
    python3.8dist(docopt)
    python3.8dist(python-dateutil)
    python3.8dist(requests)
    python3.8dist(toml)



Provides
--------
teampulls:
    config(teampulls)
    python3.8dist(teampulls)
    python3dist(teampulls)
    teampulls



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1812190 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Java, C/C++, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Based on the improvements made to the spec file in comment 6, everything looks good.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

I've sponsored you through as a packager. Welcome to Fedora, Jochen!

Thanks a lot!

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

FEDORA-2020-009a787872 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-009a787872

FEDORA-2020-1a925773e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1a925773e0

FEDORA-2020-e1eb74b7a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e1eb74b7a3

teampulls-0.2.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

teampulls-0.2.2-2.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

teampulls-0.2.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.