Bug 2280243

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7440634
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2280243-python-pytesseract/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07440634-python-pytesseract/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.

LGTM. One minor issue which need to be fixed before import:

  E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pytesseract/pytesseract.py 644 /usr/bin/env python

Best scenario: submit PR with fix upstream.

---

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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* Apache License". 25 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user/rpmbuild/fedora-
     review/2280243-python-pytesseract/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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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?)
[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.
[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.
[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:
[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-pytesseract-0.3.13-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-pytesseract-0.3.13-1.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/tmpty4k_awt')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pytesseract.src: E: spelling-error ('jpeg', '%description -l en_US jpeg -> JPEG, peg')
python-pytesseract.src: E: spelling-error ('png', '%description -l en_US png -> pg, ping, pang')
python-pytesseract.src: E: spelling-error ('gif', '%description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig')
python-pytesseract.src: E: spelling-error ('bmp', '%description -l en_US bmp -> bpm, mp, bump')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('jpeg', '%description -l en_US jpeg -> JPEG, peg')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('png', '%description -l en_US png -> pg, ping, pang')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gif', '%description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bmp', '%description -l en_US bmp -> bpm, mp, bump')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pytesseract/pytesseract.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pytesseract
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-documentation
=========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.7 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-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('jpeg', '%description -l en_US jpeg -> JPEG, peg')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('png', '%description -l en_US png -> pg, ping, pang')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gif', '%description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bmp', '%description -l en_US bmp -> bpm, mp, bump')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pytesseract/pytesseract.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pytesseract
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings, 5 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/madmaze/pytesseract/archive/v0.3.13/pytesseract-0.3.13.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 454ca16dc7fa59aa9c8ba42500992531773fbdc04caef1b39611755cae9f34bf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 454ca16dc7fa59aa9c8ba42500992531773fbdc04caef1b39611755cae9f34bf


Requires
--------
python3-pytesseract (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(packaging)
    python3.12dist(pillow)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2280243
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

>   E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pytesseract/pytesseract.py 644 /usr/bin/env python

What is your advice? Remove the first line that contains `/usr/bin/env python`?

(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #3)

Here is common RPM lint issue fixes:
  - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/CommonRpmlintIssues/
  - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks

In this case we should leave `/usr/bin/env python` in upstream and Fedora automatically mangling them into `/usr/bin/python{2,3}`. But two issues still thing need to be fixed on upstream side (ideally):

  1. `/usr/bin/env python` -> `/usr/bin/env python3`.
     Python interpreter version shouldn't be ambiguous.
  2. chmod +x on this file.

Until this will be fixed upstream in Fedora we can do:

  1. In %install stage do:
       sed -i 's|#!/usr/bin/env python|#!/usr/bin/python3|' %{buildroot}/%{python3_sitelib}/pytesseract/pytesseract.py
  2. chmod +x on this file.
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Exec_permission

Thanks for the tip. I will fix it in spec file for now and will report to the upstream.

Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-pytesseract.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-pytesseract-0.3.13-1.fc39.src.rpm

Created attachment 2033283 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7440634 to 7445495

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7445495
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2280243-python-pytesseract/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07445495-python-pytesseract/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.

LGTM, no more Rpmlint errors. Except spelling-error which could be ignored.

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-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('jpeg', '%description -l en_US jpeg -> JPEG, peg')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('png', '%description -l en_US png -> pg, ping, pang')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gif', '%description -l en_US gif -> GIF, fig, gig')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bmp', '%description -l en_US bmp -> bpm, mp, bump')
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pytesseract
python3-pytesseract.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 5 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s

---

Package approved. Please submit fix in upstream because sed'ing stuff may lead to unpleasant and unforeseen consequences in the future.

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

FEDORA-2024-1cc7e7862a (python-pytesseract-0.3.13-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1cc7e7862a

FEDORA-2024-1cc7e7862a (python-pytesseract-0.3.13-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.