Bug 2012917

Already in progress at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007997.

Reopened since the previous review request stalled and was closed blocking FE-DEADREVIEW.

Updated to 0.2.6, with a few minor packaging improvements.

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211213/python-probeinterface.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211213/python-probeinterface-0.2.6-1.fc35.src.rpm

Koji scratch builds:

F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79929256
F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79929257
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79929259

*** Bug 2007997 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

All good, only issue again the license. When importing, consider explicitly listing it as %license.

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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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 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]: 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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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
-------
OK


Source checksums
----------------
https://web.gin.g-node.org/spikeinterface/probeinterface_library/raw/master/cambridgeneurotech/ASSY-156-P-1/ASSY-156-P-1.json :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 91ed7389130134f0c0c96d96b7cf10c4b6b6f15be6b6145fb47478ecd36d3410
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91ed7389130134f0c0c96d96b7cf10c4b6b6f15be6b6145fb47478ecd36d3410
https://web.gin.g-node.org/spikeinterface/probeinterface_library/raw/master/neuronexus/A1x32-Poly3-10mm-50-177/A1x32-Poly3-10mm-50-177.json :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a76ec1f35485b7717fb01d76530e97bfe41b3d5091675e3b9079cd0a14244283
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a76ec1f35485b7717fb01d76530e97bfe41b3d5091675e3b9079cd0a14244283
https://github.com/SpikeInterface/probeinterface/archive/0.2.6/probeinterface-0.2.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bfd6842dbf192c76dfb537a2588fda2f2a7ab1dfbd14808258c993dbdc2beae3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfd6842dbf192c76dfb537a2588fda2f2a7ab1dfbd14808258c993dbdc2beae3


Requires
--------
python3-probeinterface (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(numpy)

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



Provides
--------
python3-probeinterface:
    python-probeinterface
    python3-probeinterface
    python3.10-probeinterface
    python3.10dist(probeinterface)
    python3dist(probeinterface)

python-probeinterface-doc:
    python-probeinterface-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2012917
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, R, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Ruby, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review! Repository requested.

Regarding the license file—specifically, the status quo in which the license file is marked %license by %pyproject_save_files but resides in the dist-info directory rather than in /usr/share/licenses, and the question of whether it should be additionally installed in /usr/share/licenses—Miro Hrončok responded to my query on the packaging mailing list[1] agreeing that license files do not have to be installed in /usr/share/licenses, referencing an earlier thread on the same list[2] in which Jason L Tibbits III said he knew of no such requirement.

Since Miro and Jason are both current FPC members, I think this is a reasonably conclusive answer to the question of whether the additional “%license …” is required.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CQX3A7LKXYODXDSR2KZOBNM2CRNN2AYS/
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/

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

FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209

FEDORA-2021-f13606ff79 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f13606ff79

FEDORA-2021-f13606ff79 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-f13606ff79 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f13606ff79

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

FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209

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

FEDORA-2021-f13606ff79 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-1b8df94209 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.