Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/python-pyobd/python-pyobd.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/python-pyobd/python-pyobd-0.9.3-7.fc27.src.rpm Description: pyOBD is an OBD-II (SAE-J1979) compliant scantool software written entirely in Python. It is meant to interface with the low cost ELM 32x devices such as ELM-USB. Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad This is an rename of the existing package 'pyobd'. It's renaming due to bug 1471175. I am not just renaming the binary package (which would be probably enough and shouldn't be probably against guidelines), but also the source package name (i.e. the dist-git name) not to have mess in the naming. This re-review is filled according to Fedora process: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process Please also follow the process when reviewing the package.
Review swap with bug #1462464?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > Review swap with bug #1462464? I cannot see problem :)
hm, I wonder why pyobd wasn't automagically renamed by our mass processing script: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471175#c5
The first question to ask is: is the Python library useful on its own? Is other software expected to import pyobd as a Python module? See the relevant [Guidelines]. Also, are users expected to write Python extensions for pyobd? (In that case, the py2/py3 distinction would eventually matter.) If this is an Application that just an application that happens to be written in Python. In that case, the name "pyobd" is perfectly fine. Also there's no need to provide parallel-installable python2/python3 versions in the future: just switch to Python 3 entirely. The [Guidelines] cover this case in "Mixed Use Packages": cases 2. and 3. seem appropriate -- and note that for case 2. you don't need to do anything :) If you think of this as a module, *then* the Python packaging guidelines apply. In that case, the rename could fall under a [FPC exception] for Python SIG, so formal re-review might not not needed. Let me know if you want to go that way. [Guidelines]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications [FPC exception]: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/685
(In reply to Petr Viktorin from comment #4) > The first question to ask is: is the Python library useful on its own? Is > other software expected to import pyobd as a Python module? > See the relevant [Guidelines]. > Also, are users expected to write Python extensions for pyobd? (In that > case, the py2/py3 distinction would eventually matter.) > I think it may be useful as a module, that's why I created module from it. But AFAIK nobody use it at the moment. > > If this is an Application that just an application that happens to be > written in Python. In that case, the name "pyobd" is perfectly fine. Also > there's no need to provide parallel-installable python2/python3 versions in > the future: just switch to Python 3 entirely. > The [Guidelines] cover this case in "Mixed Use Packages": cases 2. and 3. > seem appropriate -- and note that for case 2. you don't need to do anything > :) > > If you think of this as a module, *then* the Python packaging guidelines > apply. > In that case, the rename could fall under a [FPC exception] for Python SIG, > so formal re-review might not not needed. Let me know if you want to go that > way. > > [Guidelines]: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications > [FPC exception]: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/685 I don't see the FPC exception, the documents you linked only mentions rename of binary packages. I am trying here to rename the SRPM and request new dist-git repo for it and there is nothing about it in the docs you linked, so I still think the need of re-review apply. Also I think the python packaging guidelines should be updated - the formulations there are unclear, especially the relation to the Packaging:Guidelines#Libraries_and_Applications.
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 COPYING is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text => Fix needed. - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in python2-pyobd See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache => Ignore, false positive. - Group tags SHOULD get removed, they're obsolet. ===== 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: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1481645-python- pyobd/licensecheck.txt => Fix needed, see issue about COPYING file noted above. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora- logos), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd(pyobd), /usr/share/icons/hicolor(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, lxqt-powermanagement) => Fix needed, Requires: hicolor-icon-theme [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python2-pyobd (description) => Fix needed, use proper macro name. [-]: 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. => Must retire pyobd after python-pyobd is imported to repository. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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. [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]: 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. => Assuming correct funcitionality analogously to obsoleted pyobd package. [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. => Please explain more precisely what the patches are for and where from. [-]: 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. => Fix needed. Please ensure -p used for all calls to both cp and install. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL). => Fixes needed, see below. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-pyobd-0.9.3-7.fc28.noarch.rpm python-pyobd-0.9.3-7.fc28.src.rpm python2-pyobd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly python2-pyobd.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{description} python2-pyobd.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/pyobd /usr/bin/env python => s:python:%{__python2}:g python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/pyobd => Poke upstream and tell about new address. python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/debugEvent.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd2_codes.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_io.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_sensors.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python2-pyobd/COPYING python2-pyobd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyobd python2-pyobd.noarch: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/pyobd.desktop python python-pyobd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly python-pyobd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-pyobd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scantool -> scan tool, scan-tool, scantly python2-pyobd.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{description} python2-pyobd.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/pyobd /usr/bin/env python python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/pyobd python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/debugEvent.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd2_codes.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_io.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyobd/obd_sensors.py python2-pyobd.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/python2-pyobd/COPYING python2-pyobd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyobd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 3 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/builder/fedora-review/1481645-python-pyobd/srpm/python-pyobd.spec 2017-09-20 02:08:29.072253087 +0200 +++ /home/builder/fedora-review/1481645-python-pyobd/srpm-unpacked/python-pyobd.spec 2017-08-15 12:16:25.000000000 +0200 @@ -52,6 +52,4 @@ # convert CR/LF to LF dos2unix pyobd.desktop -dos2unix debugEvent.py - # fix encoding settings sed -i '/Encoding=/ s|UTF8|UTF-8|' pyobd.desktop => Fix required, upload a spec file equals to srpm content. Requires -------- python2-pyobd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env python(abi) Provides -------- python2-pyobd: application() application(pyobd.desktop) pyobd python-pyobd python2-pyobd Source checksums ---------------- http://www.obdtester.com/download/pyobd_0.9.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3004db4000e2bc166aae3b4342c98aa62f74f3372c5829472af0ee56c5e110c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3004db4000e2bc166aae3b4342c98aa62f74f3372c5829472af0ee56c5e110c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1481645 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Created attachment 1328187 [details] licensecheck.txt
Ping? Any news here?
Another friendly reminder. Requester, please answer or I am going to close here according to our guidelines for dead requests.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9) > Another friendly reminder. > Requester, please answer or I am going to close here according to our > guidelines for dead requests. Thanks for the review, it's not dead :) I will post updated spec later this week (probably on Friday, I am on a business trip until Thursday).
Hopefully all fixed, sorry for delay: Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/python-pyobd/python-pyobd.spec SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/python-pyobd/python-pyobd-0.9.3-8.fc26.src.rpm
No problem with the delay, I can be patient because busy as well. :) Unfortunately, the current state is not approvable. We've to delay this review again because of my travel activities till the next week, so don't expect anything earlier.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12) > No problem with the delay, I can be patient because busy as well. :) > > Unfortunately, the current state is not approvable. We've to delay this > review again because of my travel activities till the next week, so don't > expect anything earlier. OK, NP.
APPROVED - Did you poke upstream about incorrect FSF address? See rpmlint warnings below. - Please do not forget to retire pyopd after successful import of this package.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14) > APPROVED > Thanks. > - Did you poke upstream about incorrect FSF address? See rpmlint warnings > below. > Yes, I sent the patch upstream. > - Please do not forget to retire pyopd after successful import of this > package. OK.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyobd