Bug 1925812

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

  You have a pkgconfig(python3), so the need for python3-devel should be
  covered. It is very unconventional for a Python package to specify the Python
  BR this way—but I think it is technically correct. You may leave it unchanged
  if you prefer it this way.

- In general, I also noticed that all of your BRs use pkgconfig(), but the
  build system does not use pkg-config/pkgconf to find dependencies. As far as
  I can tell, the Guidelines do not say you can do this. They say you SHOULD
  use pkgconfig() instead of BR: *-devel when pkg-config IS used, but not that
  you SHOULD NOT when it IS NOT.

  So this is unconventional but, I think, perfectly acceptable.

- The %python_provide macro should not be used on Fedora. Please replace: 

    %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{module}}

  with

    %if 0%{?epel} && 0%{?epel} < 9
    %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{module}}
    %endif
    %if 0%{?fedora} == 32
    %py_provides python3-%{module}
    %endif

  assuming you plan to package for Fedora 32 and EPEL8. See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro.

  You may omit the “%if 0%{?fedora} == 32” conditional if you like; I find it serves as a
  reminder to remove the unnecessary macro after Fedora 32 EOL.

- It is possible to run the tests, so you should do so. Add a BR on make, and then add:

    %check
    export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}
    %make_build check PYTHON=%{__python3} RUNENV=''

- It would be nice to build the documentation. All you have to do is make sure
  there is a BR on make, add a BR on python3dist(sphinx), and add

    %make_build apidoc

  in the %build section after %py3_build.

  Then add a noarch -doc subpackage, give it its own copy of the
  %license COPYING file, and move

    %doc README CONTRIBUTING.md example?.py

  to it, adding the API documentation, like

    %doc README CONTRIBUTING.md example?.py api-doc


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

     This is the compiled Python module directly under the %python3_sitearch
     directory, which is exactly where it belongs. There is no problem.

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",
     "Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1925812-python-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

     ExcludeArch correctly justified. Remember to file an RHBZ issue blocking
     F-ExcludeArch-x86 for this package, separate from and blocked by the one
     for tkrzw, once this package is approved.

[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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.
[x]: 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:
[-]: 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-tkrzw
[?]: 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.

     ExcludeArch properly justified

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     It is possible to run the tests, so you should do so.

[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-tkrzw-0.1.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-tkrzw-debugsource-0.1.4-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-tkrzw-0.1.4-1.fc35.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-tkrzw: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/tkrzw.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg-python/tkrzw-python-0.1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832


Requires
--------
python3-tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-tkrzw:
    python-tkrzw
    python3-tkrzw
    python3-tkrzw(x86-64)
    python3.9-tkrzw
    python3.9dist(tkrzw)
    python3dist(tkrzw)

python-tkrzw-debugsource:
    python-tkrzw-debugsource
    python-tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925812
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, C/C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to code from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============

Thank you for great advises.
I leave pkgconfig() because of possible renaming packages from distro to distro.

Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-tkrzw/python-tkrzw.spec
SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-tkrzw/python-tkrzw-0.1.4-2.fc33.src.rpm
Koji builds:
F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61913452
F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61913948
F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61914151
F35: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61915911
EPEL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61912916

Thanks! Approved.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

  Covered by unconventional pkgconfig(python3).  


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

     This is the compiled Python module directly under the %python3_sitearch
     directory, which is exactly where it belongs. There is no problem.

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",
     "Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1925812-python-tkrzw/re-
     review/1925812-python-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

     ExcludeArch correctly justified. Remember to file an RHBZ issue blocking
     F-ExcludeArch-x86 for this package, separate from and blocked by the one
     for tkrzw, once this package is approved.

[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-tkrzw
[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.

     ExcludeArch properly justified

[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-tkrzw-0.1.4-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-tkrzw-doc-0.1.4-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-tkrzw-debugsource-0.1.4-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          python-tkrzw-0.1.4-2.fc35.src.rpm
python3-tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python-tkrzw-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-tkrzw-doc/api-doc/.buildinfo
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-tkrzw-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-tkrzw-doc/api-doc/.buildinfo
python3-tkrzw.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-tkrzw: /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/tkrzw.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://dbmx.net/tkrzw/pkg-python/tkrzw-python-0.1.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 667af8b4f25d63326ca11964032383d0d3265dfb8c4bfa92db665bf1f0bb3832


Requires
--------
python3-tkrzw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtkrzw.so.0()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-tkrzw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-tkrzw-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-tkrzw:
    python-tkrzw
    python3-tkrzw
    python3-tkrzw(x86-64)
    python3.9-tkrzw
    python3.9dist(tkrzw)
    python3dist(tkrzw)

python-tkrzw-doc:
    python-tkrzw-doc

python-tkrzw-debugsource:
    python-tkrzw-debugsource
    python-tkrzw-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925812
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, Ruby, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

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

FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2

FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-8eadbc70d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.