Bug 1842475

$ rpmlint .
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/publicsuffix2/public_suffix_list.dat ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Spelling errors should obviously be ignored. The dangling-relative-symlink warning is expected.

License (MIT) is different from upstream (MIT and MPLv2.0), as the MPLv2.0-licensed public_suffix_list.dat file is unbundled.

koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45279055

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python3-devel


===== 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", "Expat License Mozilla Public License
     (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)". 7 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1842475-python-
     publicsuffix2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.9
[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 20480 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]: 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 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]: 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:
[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.
[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.
[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-publicsuffix2-2.20191221-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          python-publicsuffix2-2.20191221-1.fc33.src.rpm
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD
python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/publicsuffix2/public_suffix_list.dat ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters
python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/publicsuffix2/publicsuffix2-2.20191221.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 00f8cc31aa8d0d5592a5ced19cccba7de428ebca985db26ac852d920ddd6fe7b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 00f8cc31aa8d0d5592a5ced19cccba7de428ebca985db26ac852d920ddd6fe7b


Requires
--------
python3-publicsuffix2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    publicsuffix-list



Provides
--------
python3-publicsuffix2:
    python3-publicsuffix2



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1842475
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Please fix the remaining issue before the import. Package APPROVED.

Thanks for the quick review, Fabian.

What's wrong with BR: python3-devel?

Python guidelines say:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies

Dependencies

Packages building for Python 3 will need BuildRequires: python3-devel.

(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package contains BR: python3-devel

Sorry, *must* was missing.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-publicsuffix2

Imported and built in rawhide (with the requested fix).