Bug 2228190
| Summary: | Review Request: sugar-paint - Unretire package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ibiam Chihurumnaya <ibiam> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Benson Muite <benson_muite> |
| Status: | ASSIGNED --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | benson_muite, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | benson_muite:
fedora-review?
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activities/Paint | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-08-11 17:23:19 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Attachments: | |||
|
Description
Ibiam Chihurumnaya
2023-08-01 17:16:03 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6230283 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228190-sugar-paint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06230283-sugar-paint/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. Currently fixing some build issues with the latest version of the package, I'll upload new spec and srpm links soon. SPEC URL: https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint.spec SRPM URL: https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint-72-1.fc41.src.rpm Created attachment 2103273 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6230283 to 9397740
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9397740 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228190-sugar-paint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09397740-sugar-paint/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-paint Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. Closing this as I've taken ownership of the package. The rawhide branch is currently inactive, I've tried pushing my changes but can't. How do I get it to be active? Thanks. It needs to go through review: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/#unorphaning_and_unretiring_packages Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-paint See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 223 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/sugar- paint/2228190-sugar-paint/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/lib64/python3.14, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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 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 6461 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2181120 bytes in /usr/share [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: sugar-paint-72-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm sugar-paint-72-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp7uche81h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sugar-paint.spec: W: no-%check-section sugar-paint.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 7 warnings, 7 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so /lib64/libm.so.6 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyModuleDef_Init (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so _Py_Dealloc (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PySequence_GetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_New (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_SetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyObject_Size (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyArg_ParseTuple (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_AsUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_FromUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPLv2 sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 15 warnings, 3 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- sugar-paint: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/Paint/Paint-72.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f Requires -------- sugar-paint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) sugar Provides -------- sugar-paint: sugar-paint sugar-paint(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228190 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Java, Perl, R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please update FSF addresses b) The license in the spec file should likely be GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-3.0-or-later Please use SPDX expressions Some of the program files have no license information, others have GPL-2.0-only and others have GPL-2.0-or-later. Consider using REUSE linting to ensure all files have license specifiers. https://reuse.readthedocs.io/en/stable/man/reuse-lint.html c) A python library path is used %{python3_sitearch}/fill/ To prevent conflicts, please register the name fill on PyPI. Ideally, rather than using fill, consider using sugar-paint or another name related to the application. d) Please do not package /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/.flake8 it is not needed when running the application. e) Please package and validate the desktop file https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_desktop_files You will also need an appdata file https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ f) Is it possible to use the Python packaging macros? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ g) There are some issues with locale directories in Fedora. May need to get these updated. Please raise an issue. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939724 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251577 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2311691 I've fixed some of the issues from the comments, and updated the spec file. Added an appdata file, although I didn't leave the desktop file because it seemed to break the build and I notice that a lot of sugar packages have this removed during build. The desktop file is needed. If there is an error with validation, try to fix it, ideally upstream, but a Fedora specific patch is also ok. I've added a desktop file but living it in the build throws an error, validation works just fine too; https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8942/136998942/build.log. So I had to remove it. I'm facing another error and I need help understanding why it's happening, appstream-util validation works just fine and yet I get an error. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/chimosky/sugar-paint-build/fedora-43-x86_64/09553665-sugar-paint/builder-live.log.gz 1) To be able to install the desktop file, based on https://github.com/sugarlabs/sugar-toolkit-gtk3/issues/453 please change %{python3} setup.py install --prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} to %{python3} setup.py install --destdir=%{buildroot} --prefix=%{_prefix} please also change the last section of the spec file to: %find_lang org.laptop.Oficina %check appstream-util validate-relax --nonet %{buildroot}%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.metainfo.xml desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/org.laptop.Oficina.activity.desktop %files -f org.laptop.Oficina.lang %license COPYING %doc NEWS %{python3_sitearch}/fill/ %{sugaractivitydir}/Paint.activity/ %{_datadir}/applications/org.laptop.Oficina.activity.desktop %{_metainfodir}/sugar-paint.metainfo.xml 2) Please also remove the compiled .so files before creating the src.rpm https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries This assumes releases will continue to include pre-compiled library files. I've made the changes requested in 1 and that worked, the build is now fixed, and I think what particularly made a difference was removing the appstream metainfo I'd added to %files. For 2, the spec file does this before rebuilding the needed compiled .so files. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/chimosky/sugar-paint-build/build/9559636/ https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint.spec https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint-72-2.fc41.src.rpm Created attachment 2106793 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9397740 to 9559716
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9559716 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228190-sugar-paint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09559716-sugar-paint/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-paint Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. 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/sugar-paint See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 223 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/sugar- paint/2228190-sugar-paint/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK, /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/be_Latn, /usr/lib64/python3.14, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages, /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN, /usr/share/locale/gug, /usr/share/locale/gom@latin, /usr/share/locale/gug/LC_MESSAGES [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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 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 6461 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: 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. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2191360 bytes in /usr/share [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: sugar-paint-72-2.fc44.x86_64.rpm sugar-paint-72-2.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqeqbucvs')] checks: 32, packages: 2 sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/org.laptop.Oficina.activity.desktop sugar-activity3 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so /lib64/libm.so.6 sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyModuleDef_Init (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so _Py_Dealloc (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PySequence_GetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_New (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyTuple_SetItem (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyObject_Size (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyArg_ParseTuple (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_AsUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so PyLong_FromUnsignedLong (/usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so) sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Area.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/Desenho.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/OficinaActivity.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/dialogs.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/fontcombobox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/setup.py sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/toolbox.py sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/NEWS /usr/share/doc/sugar-paint/NEWS sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/COPYING /usr/share/licenses/sugar-paint/COPYING sugar-paint.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/zu/activity.linfo /usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ab/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/agr/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/ak/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/an/activity.linfo:/usr/share/sugar/activities/Paint.activity/locale/arn/activity.linfo:(and 57 more) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 16 errors, 13 warnings, 3 filtered, 16 badness; has taken 0.3 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- sugar-paint: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/fill/_fill.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sugarlabs.org/sources/honey/Paint/Paint-72.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d9a2ed638dd8f7db99de18bfec5eb05b5ef81580d9c0a3e289b0b6e01d8ff0f Requires -------- sugar-paint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) sugar Provides -------- sugar-paint: application() application(org.laptop.Oficina.activity.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(sugar-paint.metainfo.xml) sugar-paint sugar-paint(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2228190 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, Perl, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) There should be debuginfo for fill.so Have tried to generate this, but builds other than x86_64 seem to fail: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137249849 Modified the spec file as follows: %setup -q -n Paint-%{version} # make sure to grab blob from the right location and remove prebuilt ones rm -rf fill/linux* fill/arm* # Use Fedora build and linking flags sed -i 's|$(shell python3-config --cflags)|$(shell python3-config --cflags) %{build_cflags}|g' fill/Makefile sed -i 's|$(shell python3-config --libs)|$(shell python3-config --libs) %{build_ldflags}|g' fill/Makefile # Do not remove debuginfo sed -i '/strip -s _fill.so/d' fill/Makefile %build b) Can you register the name fill on PyPI? See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Alternatively, if the library is internal for sugar-paint, can it be installed somewhere else in %libdir? c) Removing the .so files in prep is ok as per: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries Though generating a local tarball without .so files using a script would be better: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#when-upstream-uses-prohibited-code not a blocker though. d) Can the error messages below be fixed/reported? sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/aym/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ibo/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/be_Latn/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/getbooks_EN/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo sugar-paint.x86_64: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/zh_Hant_HK/LC_MESSAGES/org.laptop.Oficina.mo e) Pull request to update FSF addresses: https://github.com/sugarlabs/paint-activity/pull/45 I've made some changes and have incorporated some of your suggestions. b) I didn't register the name fill on PyPI, but I have installed it in %python3_sitelib that should be the perfect %libdir location for python packages right? c) Seeing as this isn't a blocker I don't think it needs to change, the .so files also don't qualify as "Prohibited Code" to me, correct me if I'm wrong. d) These errors no longer exist in my latest build. e) Merged, thank you! Spec URL: https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint.spec SRPM URL: https://chimosky.fedorapeople.org/sugar-paint-72-2.fc41.src.rpm Created attachment 2107282 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9559716 to 9589620
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9589620 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2228190-sugar-paint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09589620-sugar-paint/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sugar-paint Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. (In reply to Ibiam Chihurumnaya from comment #22) > I've made some changes and have incorporated some of your suggestions. > > b) I didn't register the name fill on PyPI, but I have installed it in > %python3_sitelib that should be the perfect %libdir location for python > packages right? > As per guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ this is a blocker. > c) Seeing as this isn't a blocker I don't think it needs to change, the .so > files also don't qualify as "Prohibited Code" to me, correct me if I'm wrong. > They are generated in the release process, though having extra unneeded files in the source git repositories does waste space. Ideally, the release process would generate a version without library files, which could then be used in Fedora. > d) These errors no longer exist in my latest build. Great. > > e) Merged, thank you! > Ok. (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #25) > As per guidelines: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > this is a blocker. Could you please point this out for me? I've gone through the guidelines and can't see where it says it's a blocker. It does say %{python3_sitearch} is the right place for compiled C code so I've reverted to that. > > > c) Seeing as this isn't a blocker I don't think it needs to change, the .so > > files also don't qualify as "Prohibited Code" to me, correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > They are generated in the release process, though having extra unneeded > files in the source git repositories does waste space. Ideally, the release > process would generate a version without library files, which could then be > used in Fedora. Yes they're generated in the release process, is the issue that there are unneeded files in the repo? Because if that's the case, I'll just remove them from the source, although that's handled in the spec file too. I do agree with you that having extra unneeded files in the source git repo wastes space, I'll remove them. |