Bug 1976481

Thanks a lot for packaging it. LGTM. Hope we can fix/improve later if i missed something.

Package approved.


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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
     licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gi-
     docgen-fonts
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[?]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
     Note: gi-docgen : /usr/share/pkgconfig/gi-docgen.pc
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: 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: gi-docgen-2021.6-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          gi-docgen-fonts-2021.6-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          gi-docgen-doc-2021.6-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          gi-docgen-2021.6-1.fc35.src.rpm
gi-docgen.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/gi-docgen.pc
gi-docgen-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage
gi-docgen-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
gi-docgen-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
gi-docgen.src:72: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-fzy)
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




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


Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gi-docgen/-/archive/2021.6/gi-docgen-2021.6.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 533411211bb41b18ec5b3024c91c2fc834c711b5a59c7c44875d2dc2983425f4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 533411211bb41b18ec5b3024c91c2fc834c711b5a59c7c44875d2dc2983425f4


Requires
--------
gi-docgen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    /usr/bin/python3
    gi-docgen-fonts
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(jinja2)
    python3.10dist(markdown)
    python3.10dist(markupsafe)
    python3.10dist(pygments)
    python3.10dist(toml)
    python3.10dist(typogrify)

gi-docgen-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    font(redhatdisplay)
    font(redhatdisplayblack)
    font(redhatdisplaymedium)
    font(redhattext)
    font(redhattextmedium)
    font(sourcecodepro)
    font(sourcecodeprosemibold)

gi-docgen-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
gi-docgen:
    bundled(js-fzy)
    gi-docgen
    pkgconfig(gi-docgen)
    python3.10dist(gi-docgen)
    python3dist(gi-docgen)

gi-docgen-fonts:
    gi-docgen-fonts

gi-docgen-doc:
    gi-docgen-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1976481
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, PHP, C/C++, Haskell, R, Perl, fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review. Repository requested.

I think I’ve made a high-quality gi-docgen package, but I haven’t tried actually generating documentation with it, so I appreciate and look forward to any feedback.

> high-quality gi-docgen package

It's great and there is lot work. I didn't even tried to package it TBH and thought it will be trivial but time consuming.

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

FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63

FEDORA-2021-2465e64478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2465e64478

FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63

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

FEDORA-2021-2465e64478 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-2021-2465e64478 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2465e64478

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

FEDORA-2021-70fb4a7d63 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-2465e64478 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.