Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk.spec SRPM URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk-0.9.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: ReBulk is a python library that performs advanced searches in strings that would be hard to implement using re module or String methods only. It includes some features like Patterns, Match, Rule that allows developers to build a custom and complex string matcher using a readable and extendable API. Fedora Account System Username: jorti
Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk.spec SRPM URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk-0.9.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
- You could simplify the Source URL as in python-subliminal - There are tons of python2-rebulk.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rebulk/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python python2-rebulk.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rebulk/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python [...] Python modules which are not scripts should not have a shebang. Python scripts should be executable and must use #!/usr/bin/python2 or #!/usr/bin/python3 as per [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Churchyard/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes
- There is runtests.py, is is usable? - There are two Apache licensed files: rebulk-0.9.0/rebulk/test/test_toposort.py rebulk-0.9.0/rebulk/toposort.py
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > - There is runtests.py, is is usable? That file includes the pytest library, which is already pulled with the BR, and the tests are running. I've applied the rest of your recommendations: Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk.spec SRPM URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk-0.9.0-3.fc26.src.rpm
All good, approved. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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 61440 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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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: python2-rebulk-0.9.0-3.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-rebulk-0.9.0-3.fc27.noarch.rpm python-rebulk-0.9.0-3.fc27.src.rpm python2-rebulk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher python3-rebulk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher python-rebulk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-rebulk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher python3-rebulk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python2-rebulk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-six python3-rebulk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-six Provides -------- python2-rebulk: python-rebulk python2-rebulk python2.7dist(rebulk) python2dist(rebulk) python3-rebulk: python3-rebulk python3.6dist(rebulk) python3dist(rebulk) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Toilal/rebulk/archive/0.9.0/rebulk-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 115f501e4fb7ca37df0fec05751da6614fb0d69c3296b954bb1491730399dc59 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 115f501e4fb7ca37df0fec05751da6614fb0d69c3296b954bb1491730399dc59 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1486067 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
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rebulk. You may create the branch "f27" using git in about 10 minutes.