Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-qrencode.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-qrencode-1.0-1.git.486bb7b.fc23.src.rpm Description: A simple wrapper for the C qrencode. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
*** Bug 994474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This is an unofficial review only. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions - 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 %doc. Note: Cannot find LICENSE-2.0 in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - %{__python} deprecated. The unversioned macros, %{__python}, %{python_sitelib}, and %{python_sitearch} are deprecated. You should use %{__python2}, %{python2_sitelib}, and %{python2_sitearch} to explicitly reference the python2 interpreter instead. This is future proofing for the time when things will be switched over to python3 by default instead of python2. - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps. Add -p flag to cp. - %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests for the submitted package. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: 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]: 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". 7 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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: [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 %{__python} deprecated [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-qrencode [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: 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: python-qrencode-1.0-1.git.486bb7b.fc23.x86_64.rpm python3-qrencode-1.0-1.git.486bb7b.fc23.x86_64.rpm python-qrencode-1.0-1.git.486bb7b.fc23.src.rpm python-qrencode.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.01-1 ['1.0-1.git.486bb7b.fc23', '1.0-1.git.486bb7b'] python-qrencode.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-qrencode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qrencode/_qrencode.so 0775L python3-qrencode.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-qrencode.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/qrencode/_qrencode.cpython-34m.so 0775L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-qrencode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython3.4m.so.1.0()(64bit) libqrencode.so.3()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-qrencode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpython2.7.so.1.0()(64bit) libqrencode.so.3()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-qrencode: python3-qrencode python3-qrencode(x86-64) python-qrencode: python-qrencode python-qrencode(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- python-qrencode: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/qrencode/_qrencode.so python3-qrencode: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/qrencode/_qrencode.cpython-34m.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Arachnid/pyqrencode/archive/486bb7b64e3ce5483f65e375a67da0fa6d02ca92/python-qrencode-1.0-486bb7b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 82fad6ad06a9f4b33a5e660d6281449530d4c4dd7a616b9a9ca5b3cb20f7a8d2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 82fad6ad06a9f4b33a5e660d6281449530d4c4dd7a616b9a9ca5b3cb20f7a8d2 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1195835 --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Update: [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines The packaging guidelines require using commit-based tarballs when using Github generated sources, not versions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github You should use a tarball derived from a commit hash even for stable releases, unless upstream provides tarballs in some way other than Github's generation system. You can version the package as 1.0-1 , but the Source0 URL should use a commit hash. So, SourceO should look like: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{commit}.tar.gz
(In reply to Victoria Martinez de la Cruz from comment #3) > Update: > > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > The packaging guidelines require using commit-based tarballs when using > Github generated sources, not versions: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Using a git-tag tarball from github is now allowed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Tags This changed in the last update of guidelines. Igor, can you update for the new python guidelines (python2-devel, %{__python2})? You don't need to use %{py3dir}, just run %{__python2} setup.py build and %{__python3} setup.py build from the source directory. Victoria, will you be taking the review now that you are a packager?
I will need to update package, will do soon.
New SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-qrencode.spec New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-qrencode-0-1.git.a58d28a.fc24.src.rpm
+ latest version + package name is OK + license is acceptables (ASL 2.0) + no license file, but upstream has been notified + standard python packaging template is used + %python_provide is used + builds and installs OK rpmlint: python2-qrencode.x86_64: W: no-documentation python3-qrencode.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Package is APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-qrencode
python-qrencode-0-1.git.a58d28a.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-25ba4975ef
python-qrencode-0-1.git.a58d28a.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-25ba4975ef