Bug 2257402

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6876195
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257402-dr14tmeter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06876195-dr14tmeter/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3'. 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

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.

- correct name of licence file to gpl-3.0.txt.

spec:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dtimms/dr14tmeter/fedora-39-x86_64/06877118-dr14tmeter/dr14tmeter.spec

.src.rpm:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dtimms/dr14tmeter/fedora-39-x86_64/06877118-dr14tmeter/dr14tmeter-1.0.16-0.7.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 2007970 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6876195 to 6877143

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877143
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257402-dr14tmeter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06877143-dr14tmeter/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.

Would you be interesting in swapping reviews? I'd like to get a review on:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257727

Oh! Never mind, it looks like someone started reviewing it. Sorry for the noise.

No problem, looks like you've suceeded with gnome-ponytail-daemon :-)

I will take this review.  If you are still up for a swap, and if GAP doesn't scare you, I could use a review of bug 2270581.

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

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

Issues
======
- Is there some reason this package is not noarch?  That would remove the need
  for "%global debug_package %{nil}".  The python code is installed in the
  noarch directory, and the binary is a script that is the same on all arches.

- Remove "Group: Applications/Sound".  Fedora does not use groups.
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections

- The %py3_build and %py3_install macros are deprecated:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_deprecated_macros
  Replace them with %pyproject_wheel and %pyproject_install, respectively.  You
  may also want to add this after %prep:

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires

  That will install other packages needed by pyproject, such as python3-pip and
  python3-wheel.

- Note that if you add "%pyproject_save_files dr14tmeter" after
  %pyproject_install, then the %files section can be reduced to this:

%files -f %{pyproject_files}
%license  gpl-3.0.txt
%doc      README.md
%{_bindir}/%{appname}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*

- A %check section that verifies the python code is importable is mandatory.
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests
  If you use %pyproject_save_files as recommended above, then this suffices:

%check
%pyproject_check_import

  Otherwise, you can use %py3_check_import.

- Consider adding virtual provides for the library interface:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_application_naming

- Have you considered making python3-matplotlib be a Recommends of the main
  package, instead of creating an empty package just to pull it in?  (And note
  that upstream could make this easier by adding a plotting extra, in which case
  you could use %pyproject_extras_subpkg to do the work for you.)

- If you choose to keep the plots subpackage, it must have a Requires on the
  main package.

- The license is given as "GPL-3.0-only", but I see the "or any later version"
  language everywhere.  Also, debian/copyright says "License: GPL-3.0+".  I
  think the license should be "GPL-3.0-or-later".

- Why is prerelease version numbering in use, when there appears to have been
  a 1.0.16 release (in 2015!)?  Speaking of such things, consider replacing the
  Release tag with "Release: %autorelease" and everything in the changelog
  section with "%autochangelog".  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

- Please add a comment about the Patch1 line describing what it does.  See
  "Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified"
  below.  (Also, that could be "Patch:" instead of "Patch1:" if you like.)

- Note the "non-executable-script" complaint from rpmlint below.  Should that
  file be executable?

- The binary is named dr14_tmeter, with an underscore, but the man page is named
  dr14tmeter.1, without an underscore.  Is one of them misnamed?

===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated". 5 files
     have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 865 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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.
[!]: 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).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     dr14tmeter-plots
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dr14tmeter-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          dr14tmeter-plots-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.x86_64.rpm
          dr14tmeter-1.0.16-0.7.fc41.src.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwz83aemd')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dr14tmeter/dr14_tmeter.py 644 /usr/bin/python
dr14tmeter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dr14_tmeter
dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: no-binary
dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: E: no-binary
=========== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===========




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 2

dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/dr14tmeter/dr14_tmeter.py 644 /usr/bin/python
dr14tmeter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dr14_tmeter
dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: W: no-documentation
dr14tmeter-plots.x86_64: E: no-binary
dr14tmeter.x86_64: E: no-binary
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings, 5 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/simon-r/dr14_t.meter/archive/v1.0.16/dr14tmeter-1.0.16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 73cc55af09879ecc92f911efa25988edfc9de7520efca438e192efd69c5a6372
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73cc55af09879ecc92f911efa25988edfc9de7520efca438e192efd69c5a6372


Requires
--------
dr14tmeter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    coreutils
    lame
    python(abi)
    python3-numpy
    vorbis-tools

dr14tmeter-plots (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python3-matplotlib



Provides
--------
dr14tmeter:
    dr14tmeter
    dr14tmeter(x86-64)
    python3.12dist(dr14-tmeter)
    python3dist(dr14-tmeter)

dr14tmeter-plots:
    dr14tmeter-plots
    dr14tmeter-plots(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257402 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Ruby, C/C++, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks for the review, should get to this weekend.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

David, are you still interested in submitting this package?

Closing due to lack of response from the submitter; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding.  David, if you want to continue with this review at some point, reopen this bug once a new version is ready.

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days