Bug 2262174

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6978011
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262174-python-hypercorn/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06978011-python-hypercorn/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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 117 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/fedora/2262174-python-hypercorn/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-hypercorn (description)
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 24448 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[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
-------
Checking: python3-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40.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/tmpxwsh4r09')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-hypercorn.src: E: spelling-error ('wsproto', '%description -l en_US wsproto -> proton')
python-hypercorn.src: E: spelling-error ('utilise', '%description -l en_US utilise -> utilize')
python-hypercorn.src: E: spelling-error ('asyncio', '%description -l en_US asyncio -> syncopation')
python-hypercorn.src: E: spelling-error ('uvloop', '%description -l en_US uvloop -> loop')
python-hypercorn.src: E: spelling-error ('aioquic', '%description -l en_US aioquic -> aquatic')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('wsproto', '%description -l en_US wsproto -> proton')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('utilise', '%description -l en_US utilise -> utilize')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uvloop', '%description -l en_US uvloop -> loop')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('aioquic', '%description -l en_US aioquic -> aquatic')
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 0 warnings, 13 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 1

python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('wsproto', '%description -l en_US wsproto -> proton')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('utilise', '%description -l en_US utilise -> utilize')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uvloop', '%description -l en_US uvloop -> loop')
python3-hypercorn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('aioquic', '%description -l en_US aioquic -> aquatic')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pgjones/hypercorn/archive/0.16.0/hypercorn-0.16.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7fc8578cde36f3b5a08845c2ef37ff2aafb5efcbb40be561f58405fe0b8f88de
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7fc8578cde36f3b5a08845c2ef37ff2aafb5efcbb40be561f58405fe0b8f88de


Requires
--------
python3-hypercorn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(h11)
    python3.12dist(h2)
    python3.12dist(priority)
    python3.12dist(wsproto)



Provides
--------
python3-hypercorn:
    python-hypercorn
    python3-hypercorn
    python3.12-hypercorn
    python3.12dist(hypercorn)
    python3dist(hypercorn)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2262174
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Logo is CC0 https://github.com/pgjones/hypercorn/blob/main/artwork/LICENSE but does not seem to be packaged.
b) License file is packaged twice at:
/usr/share/licenses/python3-hypercorn/LICENSE
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/hypercorn-0.16.0.dist-info/LICENSE

but seems incorrectly marked:
rpm -qL python3-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/licenses/python3-hypercorn/LICENSE
c) Will the subpackages always pull in the main package?

Thank you for the review!

> a) Logo is CC0 https://github.com/pgjones/hypercorn/blob/main/artwork/LICENSE but does not seem to be packaged.

That was my conclusion as well. If it were packaged, it would be OK (CC0-1.0 allowed for content, not for code) but it would need to appear in the License expression.

> b) License file is packaged twice at:
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-hypercorn/LICENSE
> /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/hypercorn-0.16.0.dist-info/LICENSE
> 
> but seems incorrectly marked:
> rpm -qL python3-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-hypercorn/LICENSE

This is typical of packages using poetry (using poetry-core as the build backend). From https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros:

  %pyproject_save_files can automatically mark license files
  with %license macro and language (*.mo) files with %lang
  macro and appropriate language code. Only license files
  declared via PEP 639 License-File field are detected. PEP
  639 is still a draft and can be changed in the future.

Since Poetry doesn’t implement the draft PEP 639, %pyproject_save_files isn’t able to mark license files in .dist-info directories with %license when the package is built with poetry-core as the build backend. It’s correct that Poetry packages these files in .dist-info (to ensure they are distributed with wheels), and it’s valid that they choose not to implement a draft PEP, even though many other Python build backends do implement it.

In order to mark the license file in .dist-info manually, we would need to sed-patch the file at %{pyproject_files}, which is feasible, but kind of ugly for the small improvement it would bring, and is needlessly different from the “usual practice” for Python packages built with poetry-core. Besides, we still couldn’t use %pyproject_save_files -l, and so there would be a risk of accidentally dropping the license file altogether in an update if we omitted the manual %license LICENSE. It’s better to accept a duplicate copy of the license file in exchange for simplicity and a guarantee that *at least one copy* is properly marked.

> c) Will the subpackages always pull in the main package?

Yes, the subpackages python3-hypercorn+h3, python3-hypercorn+trio, and python3-hypercorn+uvloop always have a fully-versioned dependency on python3-hypercorn. If they did not, it would represent a bug in the implementation of the %pyproject_extras_subpkg macro that was used to define them.

Since they’re metapackages with no file contents of their own, the fact that they have a License field matching that of the base package is pretty much just a formality anyway.

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

https://release-monitoring.org/project/26598/

FEDORA-2024-468d1e9ef7 (python-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-468d1e9ef7

FEDORA-2024-468d1e9ef7 (python-hypercorn-0.16.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.