Bug 2235083 (python-spdx-tools)

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools-0.7.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540229
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235083-python-spdx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06540229-python-spdx-tools/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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 needs to be addressed:
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/convertor.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/parser.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_tv.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/tv_to_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/write_tv.py /usr/bin/env python

This would be nice to fix. At least please open the issue with upstream:
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_convertor
python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_parser


https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/pull/3456 is merged, so you can rebase to 0.8.1.

You are missing full-stop at the end of %description paragraph.

Otherwise LGTM

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools-0.7.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

> https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/pull/3456 is merged, so you can rebase to 0.8.1.

Need to wait for A RELEASE

> This needs to be addressed:
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/convertor.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/parser.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_tv.py /usr/bin/env python
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/tv_to_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/write_tv.py /usr/bin/env python

Addressed.

> This would be nice to fix. At least please open the issue with upstream:
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_convertor
> python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_parser

I will use help2man for now.


Thanks for the review.

Created attachment 1996269 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6540229 to 6582839

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6582839
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235083-python-spdx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06582839-python-spdx-tools/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.

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]: 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.
     Note: Documentation size is 20003 bytes in 8 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: 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:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
     Note: It is not latest version, but it was justified in comments.
[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.


APPROVED

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-spdx-tools

Thanks for the review!

FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d

FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787

FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7

FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787

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

FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d

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

FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7

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

FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.