Bug 1893538

 - Use:

Source0:        %{pypi_source}


 - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in %install

 - Remove the shebang:

python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python




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

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


Issues:
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bashate
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 55 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python-bashate/review-python-
     bashate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 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 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:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-bashate
[?]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-bashate-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-bashate-doc-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-bashate-2.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-bashate.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/.E005_excluded
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E001_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E002_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E003_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E003_good.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_bad_custom_length.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_good.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E010_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E010_good.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E011_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E011_good.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E040_syntax_error.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E041_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/comments.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/heredoc_ignore.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/legacy_sample.sh 644 /bin/bash 
python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate
python-bashate-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-bashate-doc/html/objects.inv
python-bashate-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-bashate-doc/html/objects.inv
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 4 warnings.

>  - Use:
> 
> Source0:        %{pypi_source}

Changed

>  - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in
> %install

I changed the spec to have a %exclude in %files so tests can be done but part of the final rpm. Is this acceptable? If not, is there any example I can check?

>  - Remove the shebang:
> 
> python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python

Done

> >  - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in
> > %install
> 
> I changed the spec to have a %exclude in %files so tests can be done but
> part of the final rpm. Is this acceptable? If not, is there any example I
> can check?
> 

Technically the %exclude macro is used to distribute files between subpackages. Deleting ir %enstall is preferred although I won't block that review on this technicality.


Package approved.

FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428

FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.