Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: GIFTI is an XML-based file format for cortical surface data. This reference IO implementation is developed by the Neuroimaging Informatics Technology Initiative (NIfTI). Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
This is not a Official Review,Not Sponsored Yet -------------------------------------------------------------- Mock Build Fails Reason is as per the build.log BUILDSTDERR: /%{python2_sitelib}/pygiftiio.py Child return code was: 1 EXCEPTION: [Error()] Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 96$ result = func(*args, **kw) File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 636, in do raise exception.Error("Command failed: \n # %s\n%s" % (command, output), ch$ mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 01880446ff384476973d232d9b6f3585 -D /var/lib/m$
The error isn't too clear somehow. I did check koji again and I *think* I've corrected the issue. When you use mock, please specify what target you've used. Since packages may do different things for different targets (releases) as this one does, and versions of packages differ between our releases too, this helps us indentify what the issue may be. This error for example, would not happen if you built for F29, so I suspect you build for rawhide. Here are successful scratch builds for rawhide and F29 (koji also uses mock): rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30963539 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30963549 Updated spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.fc29.src.rpm
License: MIT %license LICENSE.GPL Is it GPL or MIT?
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pygiftiio /review-python-pygiftiio/licensecheck.txt [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 10240 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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. [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: python3-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm python3-pygiftiio.noarch: E: devel-dependency gifticlib-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > License: MIT > > %license LICENSE.GPL > > Is it GPL or MIT? Gah! Sorry about that---that's from the template. It's GPL. Corrected: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.fc29.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
Thanks very much! SCM requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8898
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pygiftiio
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-625dee4559
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-aa97f027d7
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-aa97f027d7
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.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-2018-625dee4559
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.