Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eklitzke/python-scan-build/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00754183-python-scan-build/scan-build.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eklitzke/python-scan-build/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00754183-python-scan-build/python-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.src.rpm This package is a little weird and I need some help on it. I've broken this down into a few parts below. scan-build binary ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Right now there is an official utility called scan-build which is part of LLVM. One of the LLVM developers has been working on a Python reimplementation of scan-build, which also has some extra features. This is likely to become the official scan-build implementation in a future LLVM release. The existing scan-build implementation is packaged in the clang-analyzer package, which includes the following binaries: /usr/bin/scan-build /usr/bin/scan-view My new package includes the following binaries: /usr/bin/analyze-build /usr/bin/analyze-c++ /usr/bin/analyze-cc /usr/bin/intercept-build /usr/bin/intercept-c++ /usr/bin/intercept-cc /usr/bin/scan-build As you can see there are new (and useful!) binaries in this Python implementation. However, I will need to rename the /usr/bin/scan-build to avoid conflicting with clang-analyzer. I'm open to suggestions on how to handle this. License ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The license file used by this project is the same as LLVM, which is a custom NCSA-like license. I looked at the llvm source package, and they just declare the license there to be NCSA, so I did the same. The actual license can be found here: https://github.com/rizsotto/scan-build/blob/master/LICENSE.txt noarch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pyp2rpm thought this was a binary package because the setup.py file says it's not zip-safe. Actually it works in kind of a strange way: the package includes a file named ear.c, and the intercept-build binary compiles this on-the-fly when wrapping builds. The ear.c file isn't actually built by setup.py. I changed the spec file to be noarch which I think is correct, but I would like someone to double check this. My FAS username: eklitzke
>As you can see there are new (and useful!) binaries in this Python implementation. However, I will need to rename the /usr/bin/scan-build to avoid conflicting with clang-analyzer. I'm open to suggestions on how to handle this. py-scan-build? - Name your SPEC the same name as the package, i.e. python-scan-build - Can't install the package: DEBUG util.py:485: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on mer. 16 mai 2018 16:17:26 CEST. DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:483: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3dist(typing) needed by python3-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch There's a python2-typing but no python3-typing beecause "in Python 3.5 and later, the typing module lives in the stdlib, and installing this package has NO EFFECT." So I guess you can safely remove that BR for the Py3 subpackage. Just update the SPEC with the rename and the BR hnage and I'll approve it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-scan-build /review-python-scan-build/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: 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 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]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -scan-build , python3-scan-build [?]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/bob/packaging/review/python-scan-build /review-python-scan-build/srpm-unpacked/scan-build.spec See: (this test has no URL) Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python3-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-scan-build-2.0.13-1.fc29.src.rpm python2-scan-build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc python2-scan-build.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/libear/ear.c python3-scan-build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc python3-scan-build.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/libear/ear.c python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-build python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-c++ python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary analyze-cc python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-build python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-c++ python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary intercept-cc python3-scan-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scan-build python-scan-build.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gcc -> cc, g cc python-scan-build.src: E: invalid-spec-name 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings.
Evan: are you coming back to this?
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
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.