Spec URL: https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fileobj.spec SRPM URL: https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: fileobj is a portable hex editor with vi like interface. This software is written in Python and runs on Python 2.6 or above. This software provides basic vi commands for binary editing. Features include inserting, replacing, deleting data in hexadecimal or ascii, cut and paste, undo and redo, visual select, partial buffer loading, support for multiple buffers and windows, block device editing, ptrace based userspace editing, mapping data to C style struct, etc. The same code base runs on Python 2.6, 2.7 and 3.x with the same functionality. The package is built only for Python3 based on what's written in below. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Avoiding_collisions_between_the_python_2_and_python_3_stacks Upstream: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fileobj/ Documentation: https://github.com/kusumi/fileobj/blob/v0.7/README.md It's my first submission to Fedora, so please be a sponsor. =========================================================== Fedora Account System Username: tkusumi
Hello, I'm not yet a packager, so this is an unofficial review. Package Review ============== REVIEW: + OK - NA X ISSUE + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License + License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. X Sources match upstream sha256sum: $ sha256sum ~/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz 6ff88b1eb6fc7dc448723951d51f21f8a52bd0a21a977bc8e1ddfa737c8b2a91 ~/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz 91818f82eb278c27412225c09ad7732c1962589f11652b19c781fbb5f95065e6 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz ^^ I think you may update to the last version: v0.7.46 - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package is code or permissible content. + Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint fedora_review/fileobj/fileobj.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc27.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc27.noarch.rpm fedora_review/fileobj/fileobj.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found fileobj.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ^^ Sources aren't available on its link. I think you may use the GitHub release link. + final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Sources doesn't match with upstream. 2. I think you should update to the last version available. 3. It will be better if you find another sources link. You should verify your sources and rebuild the package with upstream sources. If you would like to be sponsored, I advise you to do informal review on other review requests, you need to show you're interested in packaging and you know packaging and reviewing guidelines.
This is an un-official review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check for naming python packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines - Provides is missing check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the unversioned python package. - Package runs this command in %install section rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Following code looks unnecessary to me as "with python3" or "without python3 is not used in spec:- %if 0%{?fedora} %bcond_without python3 %else %bcond_with python3 %endif - It would be good to Split buildrequires in seperate lines ===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora- reviews/1339227-fileobj/licensecheck.txt [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check for naming python packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines [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. [-]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files. [!]: 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 [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Package runs this command [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the unversioned python package. [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags The given Source0 URL doesn't exist I downloaded latest from: https://excellmedia.dl.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.46.zip and generated 0.7.34 using python setup.py sdist [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 0.7.46 is available, spec is packaging 0.7.34 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream repo doesn't contain tests [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tried f25 mockbuild on 0.7.34, it succeed [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 [!]: SourceX is a working URL. URL not working Following worked as given url redirects to https://excellmedia.dl.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.46.zip [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Invalid Source0 URL [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc25.noarch.rpm fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc25.src.rpm fileobj.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Hello I can take care of this review if you still want to become a Fedora packager.
Hello, if you dont answer i will close this ticket as DEADREVIEW.
Hi I'm going to rebase and resubmit the package. I would ultimately like to be a Fedora packager of this software whose upstream is myself. Btw, do I still need to support both Python 2 (2.7) and 3 ? Thanks.
Supported Python versions and upstream URL have changed over the years, so here is the updated description. --- Description: Ncurses based hex editor with vi interface. This software is written in Python and supports Python 2.7 or 3.2+ (single source for Python 2 and 3 with same functionality). Upstream: https://github.com/kusumi/fileobj which is my (Tomohiro Kusumi) GitHub account. Fedora Account System Username: tkusumi
(In reply to kusumi.tomohiro from comment #5) > Hi > I'm going to rebase and resubmit the package. > I would ultimately like to be a Fedora packager of this software whose > upstream is myself. > > Btw, do I still need to support both Python 2 (2.7) and 3 ? > > Thanks. Python 2 is deprecated we do not support it anymore in Fedora Rawhide.
Hi I've updated spec file and SRPM for Fedora 31 based on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Since now that both upstream and Fedora dropped Python 2.7 support, a spec file seems quite straight forward. I've referenced some spec files from the existing python3- packages, but basically based on python-example.spec in above guidelines. Files are located at below. https://www.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31/fileobj.spec https://www.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31/python-fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Ncurses based hex editor with vi interface. This software is written in Python and supports Python 3.2 or above. Upstream: https://github.com/kusumi/fileobj Fedora Account System Username: tkusumi Assuming the way it requires sponsor hasn't changed, I need a sponsor. ======================================================================
- Not needed, if thebuild is not set as noarch then it is arched by default: # fileobj contains C extension BuildArch: x86_64 - Glob the man page extension as the compression may change in the future: %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.* - Source is 404: Source0: %{pypi_source} You don't seem to have published it on Pypi: https://pypi.org/search/?q=fileobj Use Github then: Source0: %url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Since it is a binary package, I think you should just name it fileobj and not provide a python3 subpackage. Name: fileobj […] %files %license COPYING %doc CHANGES CONTRIBUTORS PKG-INFO README.md RELEASES %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/ %{_bindir}/%{srcname} %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.* - You need to BR gcc as well: BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: gcc - PKG-INFO is not found, don't include it RPM build errors: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/fileobj/PKG-INFO Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [!]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [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", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fileobj/review-fileobj/licensecheck.txt [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). [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: 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 [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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm fileobj-debuginfo-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm fileobj-debugsource-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.src.rpm fileobj.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ncurses -> Curses, N curses, Nurses fileobj.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ncurses -> Curses, N curses, Nurses 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Thanks for your comments. Updated spec file and SRPM are available at below. https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31_v2/ > - Not needed, if thebuild is not set as noarch then it is arched by default: > > # fileobj contains C extension > BuildArch: x86_64 Removed BuildArch. > > > - Glob the man page extension as the compression may change in the future: > > %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.* Glob'd the man page. > > - Source is 404: > > Source0: %{pypi_source} > > You don't seem to have published it on Pypi: https://pypi.org/search/?q=fileobj > > Use Github then: > > Source0: %url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Changed it to a GitHub URL. > > - Since it is a binary package, I think you should just name it fileobj and not provide a python3 subpackage. > > Name: fileobj > > […] > > %files > %license COPYING > %doc CHANGES CONTRIBUTORS PKG-INFO README.md RELEASES > %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info > %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/ > %{_bindir}/%{srcname} > %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.* Changed it to "fileobj" package. Also removed %python_provide macro part for python3- package based on what's mentioned in below. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_provides > > - You need to BR gcc as well: > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > BuildRequires: gcc Added gcc. > > - PKG-INFO is not found, don't include it > > RPM build errors: > File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/fileobj/PKG-INFO Removed PKG-INFO. Looks like a tarball from GitHub doesn't contain PKG-INFO, while sdist'd tarball from upstream source does contain PKG-INFO, and my SRPM previously contained sdist'd tarball.
LGTM, package approved. You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Review stalled
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.