Bug 1857059

 - Not needed anymore:

%posttrans
update-desktop-database

 - %make_install already contain DESTDIR=%{buildroot}


 - You should remove the shebang of these files:

bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/CLI.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/GUI.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/_platform.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 



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", "*No copyright* Expat License GNU
     General Public License (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 97 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/bleachbit/review-bleachbit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[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: bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.noarch.rpm
          bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/CLI.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/GUI.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/_platform.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 
bleachbit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bleachbit
bleachbit.noarch: W: one-line-command-in-%posttrans update-desktop-database
bleachbit.src: W: invalid-url Source1: https://svwh.dl.sourceforge.net/project/bleachbit/bleachbit/4.0.0/detached_signatures/bleachbit-4.0.0.tar.gz.sig <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

Great, thanks! I've been having some trouble running fedora-review locally: Based on local files with `fedora-review --name`, it fails during mockbuild %build phase with "no job control", even though `fedpkg mockbuild` completes without error; and based on this online Bugzilla thread with `fedora-review --bug`, it fails to download the SRPM with Error 403, even though wget is able to download the same exact URL without issue, and I don't understand what's going wrong on my end... So I wasn't sure if fedora-review was going to even work here.

I'm also not sure how to strip the shebangs from the non-executable files. I'd rather do it dynamically, based on `find`ing -not -executable files or something, rather than acting on CLI.py, GUI.py, and _platform.py explicitly... However, in the source, *most* Python files are marked as executable for some reason, and then the executability is removed where unneeded during %build or %install. So testing for executability during the %prep phase just doesn't catch the files. On the other hand, testing and stripping the shebangs *after* compilation causes a mismatch between the file timestamps for the source and compiled byte code, and rpmlint says this means the byte code will get recompiled every time the application launches...

  bleachbit.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime
  /usr/share/bleachbit/__pycache__/Update.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc  2020-07-15T09:21:59
  /usr/share/bleachbit/Update.py  2020-07-15T09:22:00
  The timestamp embedded in this python bytecode file isn't equal to the mtime
  of the original source file, which will force the interpreter to recompile the
  .py source every time, ignoring the saved bytecode...

The best I can figure is, during %prep, to strip shebangs from *all* source Python files under ./bleachbit/, since all the files in that directory seem to install to /usr/share/. I don't know if that's guaranteed, though, so I kinda dislike this heuristic.


Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/5e93cad32cd6f9e83c3d0141ea2d95ef/bleachbit.spec

SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/89d4a8f31ca4122b4bd8bd2317618e85/bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm

I did not have any issue with f-review. Try scrubbing your mock chroot (mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --scrub=all)

If it causes a mismatch don't do it. It should be done in prep, not after install.

Package LGTM, is approved.

Oh, I'd forgotten the minor issue you pointed out, about DESTDIR being defined already in %make_install.

Your suggestion of clearing the mock chroot fixed local fedora-review for me, and also allowed me to use the optimized %make_build for the delete_windows_files target. (Probably doesn't actually help much in this case, but probably doesn't hurt either, and removes a complaint from the generated review.txt.)

Anyway, thanks for the review, and approval. I'll post the minor updates anyway.

Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/9322a7b2b05abd0f08fe68745121ee0d/bleachbit.spec

SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/b2258932d8a70cd01fcb96bcc3551f93/bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm

Okay, the package repo has been reopened on Pagure.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9604

BleachBit is building in Koji now.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8886

And it should appear in Bodhi soon.