Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-validators.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/python-validators-0.12.0-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Data Validation in python for Humans Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor
Package looks good to me, but `%{python3_sitelib}/*`… You shoudn't greedy-glob there, since you might own the `__pycache__` directory, which is owned by python3 itself. Package APPROVED!
Maybe you could have a look at one of my packages waiting for review in exchange? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529352 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705
Hello William, I will do an unofficial review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ===================== - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses MIT. I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, but the LICENSE file is MIT. I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear a bit inconsistent to me. - You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on BuildRequires field, instead of python2-*/python3-* [1]. - You can use %{py3_dist}/%{py2_dist} macro on Requires field, instead of python2-*/python3-* [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- validators/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: 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. [!]: 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 20480 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. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2-validators , python3-validators [x]: 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-validators-0.12.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python3-validators-0.12.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm python-validators-0.12.0-1.fc27.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-validators.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kvesteri/validators <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-validators.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/kvesteri/validators <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-validators (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-decorator python3-six python2-validators (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-decorator python2-six Provides -------- python3-validators: python3-validators python3.6dist(validators) python3dist(validators) python2-validators: python-validators python2-validators python2.7dist(validators) python2dist(validators) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/validators/validators-0.12.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bf1aa66554df0a7907f0e78b6d356e2ce30d6f2e73fefd1f3b14d20114341066 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf1aa66554df0a7907f0e78b6d356e2ce30d6f2e73fefd1f3b14d20114341066 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1529023 Buildroot used: fedora-27-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
> - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > MIT. > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > a bit inconsistent to me. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > validators/licensecheck.txt Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about it. The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall be' to do it). For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our guidelines. > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional Python guidelines…
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > > MIT. > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about > it. > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > be' to do it). > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our > guidelines. > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and the license file be different. > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > Python guidelines… William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed on the review.
(In reply to David Carlos from comment #5) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > > > MIT. > > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about > > it. > > > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you > > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > > be' to do it). > > > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our > > guidelines. > > > > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but > the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or > not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is > not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my > opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and > the license file be different. Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release of the package… > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > > Python guidelines… > > William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed > on the review. Mhh… 'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines. Or is my logic wrong here?
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #6) > (In reply to David Carlos from comment #5) > > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #4) > > > > - Your License field defines BSD as the package license, but upstream uses > > > > MIT. > > > > I had notices that the upstream setup.py file defines the license as BSD, > > > > but the LICENSE file is MIT. > > > > I don't have enough knowledge about licensing but this appear > > > > a bit inconsistent to me. > > > > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > > > found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or > > > > generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 48 files have unknown > > > > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > > > > /home2/david/rpmbuild/REVISIONS/1529023-python- > > > > validators/licensecheck.txt > > > > > > Well, there is very little difference in these licenses. On Pypi the > > > package is distributed as BSD licensed… That's why I didn't complain about > > > it. > > > > > > The only real difference between those two licenses is: BSD *requires* you > > > to redistribute the license file, MIT does not (It just recommends 'shall > > > be' to do it). > > > > > > For a Fedora package this difference is not relevant, since we require to > > > redistribute the license file along with the SRPM and the binary RPMs by our > > > guidelines. > > > > > > > We are packaging a license file containing a MIT license description, but > > the license spec field defines the license as BSD. If this is relevant or > > not, I really don't know, but is inconsistent. In my point of view this is > > not a packaging problem, but was a decision made by the upstream (in my > > opinion, a inconsistent decision) that is making the license spec field and > > the license file be different. > > Then that *should* be discussed with upstream and changed in a new release > of the package… As I said, it is not a packaging problem, but is a problem that is interfering in how the packaging was made. > > > > > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > > > > > I don't get the reason, why the package doesn't comply to the additional > > > Python guidelines… > > > > William should use the python macros defined on the guidelines, as I pointed > > on the review. > > Mhh… 'should' != 'must' and thus doesn't violate the guidelines. Or is my > logic wrong here? The fedora-review tool not fills this item automatically. Is a reviewer decision if using or not a macro violates the python guidelines. On the guidelines is not explicit defined that not using macros is a violation, but is a rule that I, as a reviewer, always follow. If there is a macro for something, use it. So, for me this is a packaging rule and I should have said 'must' instead of 'should'. In any case, this is a informal review so he can decides by him self this question.
> > Package APPROVED! Thanks for this review, please ping if you need a package review, the 3 packages you have listed are already aproved.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-validators. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2e8e0c2a4a
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-2e8e0c2a4a
python-validators-0.12.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.