Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00754003-python-h2/python-h2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00754003-python-h2/python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: HTTP/2 Protocol Stack This repository contains a pure-Python implementation of a HTTP/2 protocol stack. It's written from the ground up to be embeddable in whatever program you choose to use, ensuring that you can speak HTTP/2 regardless of your programming paradigm. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
Willing to review. fasid: linuxmodder
You don't seem to be member of the Packager group?
SRPM link is no longer valid.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00763201-python-h2/python-h2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00763201-python-h2/python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
Taking over this review as per Robert-André's request. I'll continue this review once hpack and hyperframe are in rawhide, ping me when they are available in the rawhide buildroot.
Both hpack and hyperframe are in rawhide.
ISSUES ====== 1) You can just use "%package docs", "%description docs", and "%files docs" instead of redundantly using "%package -n %{name}-docs", etc. 2) The -doc subpackage also bundles jquery.js and underscore.js. Please unbundle them, just like with python-hyperlink (don't forget adding both BuildRequires in general and "Requires:" for "js-jquery" and "js-underscore" to the -doc package, so no broken symlinks are present in the installed -doc package). 3) Minor nit-pick: Summary of the -doc package isn't capitalized, and rpmlint complains about that. Please fix those 2½ issues. Otherwise, the package looks straightforward and good. 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. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: %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-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python3-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-h2-doc-3.0.1-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm python-h2-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C documentation for python-h2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python2-h2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://hyper.rtfd.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-h2.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://hyper.rtfd.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python-h2-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C documentation for python-h2 python-h2-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://hyper.rtfd.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- python2-h2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2.7dist(enum34) python2.7dist(hpack) python2.7dist(hyperframe) python3-h2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.6dist(hpack) python3.6dist(hyperframe) python-h2-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python2-h2: python-h2 python2-h2 python2.7dist(h2) python2dist(h2) python3-h2: python3-h2 python3.6dist(h2) python3dist(h2) python-h2-doc: python-h2-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/h2/h2-3.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2962f883fa392a23cbfcc4ad03c335bcc661be0cf9627657b589f0df2206e64 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2962f883fa392a23cbfcc4ad03c335bcc661be0cf9627657b589f0df2206e64 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local -b 1578101 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
> 1) You can just use "%package docs", "%description docs", and "%files docs" > instead of redundantly using "%package -n %{name}-docs", etc. Erm, typo ... of course I meant to write "doc" (not docs) here, too.
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00763765-python-h2/python-h2.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/python-twisted/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00763765-python-h2/python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Thanks for all the reviews!
.spec looks good now! Package approved > Thanks for all the reviews! No problem, you did a lot of them for me, too.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-h2
python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-806cce8b0c
python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c45ca6a4ba
python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-806cce8b0c
python-h2-3.0.1-1.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-c45ca6a4ba
python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-h2-3.0.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.