Bug 2137152

First minor/major comment: saw that just today version 0.10.0 was released including your patch (that is in the SRPM): maybe worth bumping directly to that?

> Source:         %{url}/archive/v%{version}/v%{version}.tar.gz
> # Remove shebang from a file that is not intended to be executed
> Patch:          https://github.com/xattr/xattr/pull/106.patch

Can use %{url} also for patch?

> BuildRequires:  gcc
> BuildRequires:  pytest
> BuildRequires:  python3-devel

Usually I see it's norm to put a comment before the testing ones (just pytest in this case)


> %doc CHANGES.txt
> %doc README.rst

Could put all in a line? Maybe add as well TODO.txt
Maybe add also "%license LICENSE.txt" ?

Thank you for reviewing!

(In reply to fedepell from comment #1)
> First minor/major comment: saw that just today version 0.10.0 was released
> including your patch (that is in the SRPM): maybe worth bumping directly to
> that?

Nice, updated to the latest version.

> > Source:         %{url}/archive/v%{version}/v%{version}.tar.gz
> > # Remove shebang from a file that is not intended to be executed
> > Patch:          https://github.com/xattr/xattr/pull/106.patch
> 
> Can use %{url} also for patch?

Makes sense, but not applicable for 0.10.0 which does not need the patch.

> > BuildRequires:  gcc
> > BuildRequires:  pytest
> > BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> 
> Usually I see it's norm to put a comment before the testing ones (just
> pytest in this case)

I suppose it is a matter of style,
however I moved the test dependency to the end of the list and added such comment.

> > %doc CHANGES.txt
> > %doc README.rst
> 
> Could put all in a line? Maybe add as well TODO.txt

Matter of style again, however I applied you suggestion.
I also added TODO.txt.

> Maybe add also "%license LICENSE.txt" ?

Uh, this was a bad mistake. Added.

Spec URL: http://oturpe.kapsi.fi/fedora/rpms/python-xattr/2/python-xattr.spec
SRPM URL: http://oturpe.kapsi.fi/fedora/rpms/python-xattr/2/python-xattr-0.10.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93439889

Thanks for the update to latest version and the changes! Looks pretty good to me now! (please note: new packager, first "official" review, but package was looking rather easy ;-) )


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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/foo/2137152-python-xattr/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.
[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 3 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]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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-xattr
[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.
[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).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyObject_CallMethod	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyEval_RestoreThread	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so _Py_Dealloc	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyObject_Malloc	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyObject_Free	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyLong_FromLong	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyLong_FromVoidPtr	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyArg_UnpackTuple	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyErr_Occurred	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyImport_ImportModule	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so PyEval_SaveThread	(/usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so)
python3-xattr.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xattr
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-xattr: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/xattr/_lib.abi3.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/xattr/xattr/archive/v0.10.0/v0.10.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2ef4a6e9ba7fbd0840ae7270df60e8113ecb731d46f3a02f01ad7938b73359ca
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2ef4a6e9ba7fbd0840ae7270df60e8113ecb731d46f3a02f01ad7938b73359ca


Requires
--------
python3-xattr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(cffi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

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



Provides
--------
python3-xattr:
    python-xattr
    python3-xattr
    python3-xattr(x86-64)
    python3.11-xattr
    python3.11dist(xattr)
    python3dist(xattr)

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



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/foo/2137152-python-xattr/srpm/python-xattr.spec	2022-10-26 13:47:46.696512314 +0200
+++ /home/foo/2137152-python-xattr/srpm-unpacked/python-xattr.spec	2022-10-25 22:22:18.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 
 
@@ -57,3 +66,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Tue Oct 25 2022 John Doe <packager> 0.10.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2137152
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

```

Thank you,
and congratulations for performing the first Fedora package review!

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

Package is now in repositories, closing review.