Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/johnkim76/rpmbuild_files/master/SPECS/python-dictdiffer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/johnkim76/rpmbuild_files/raw/master/SRPMS/python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Dictdiffer is a module that helps you to diff and patch dictionaries Fedora Account System Username: jkim We would like to add this because it is a dependency of python-openshift.
(just fixing expected review bug title)
In general terms the spec looks ok to me, there are just a couple issues to fix: - There is no need to add an explicit Requires: for python2 or python3, the build process will figure it out and add it to the package. - fedora-review complains that the spec from the SRPM and the one in the bug are different, could you fix that? - The cleanup for .buildinfo after building docs is not cleaning .doctrees, and rpmlint complains about that - Finally, there is an inconsistency in the build requirements for the doc subpackage when using python2: %else BuildRequires: python2-sphinx BuildRequires: python3-recommonmark <-- should be python2 %endif
Hi Javier, I've updated the files with your comments. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danielmellado/rpmbuild_files/master/SPECS/python-dictdiffer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/danielmellado/rpmbuild_files/blob/master/SRPMS/python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-2.fc30.src.rpm Description: Dictdiffer is a module that helps you to diff and patch dictionaries Fedora Account System Username: dmellado We would like to add this because it is a dependency of python-openshift. John, I've forked your inital spec and sent you a PR for this, so feel free to change this back to your repo if you'd like to, same as per FAS.
Small typo: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danielmellado/rpmbuild_files/master/SPECS/python-dictdiffer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/danielmellado/rpmbuild_files/raw/master/SRPMS/python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-2.fc30.src.rpm Description: Dictdiffer is a module that helps you to diff and patch dictionaries Fedora Account System Username: dmellado
Hello Daniel, I've reviewed your PR, and merged it. Thank you for fixing.
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1659281 -python-dictdiffer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dictdiffer [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.7/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.7, /usr/lib/python3.7/site- packages/dictdiffer [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. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-dictdiffer , python-dictdiffer-doc [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: python3-dictdiffer-0.7.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm python-dictdiffer-doc-0.7.1-2.fc30.noarch.rpm python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-2.fc30.src.rpm python3-dictdiffer.noarch: W: no-documentation python-dictdiffer-doc.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Documentation for python-dictdiffer. python-dictdiffer.src:81: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{name}-%{version}-doc 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python3-dictdiffer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-dictdiffer-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-dictdiffer: python3-dictdiffer python3.7dist(dictdiffer) python3dist(dictdiffer) python-dictdiffer-doc: python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-doc python-dictdiffer-doc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/inveniosoftware/dictdiffer/archive/v0.7.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30cd885a55023f21bf32047ebda326f7bf2b2f7e14d877dc266f14744484f96a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30cd885a55023f21bf32047ebda326f7bf2b2f7e14d877dc266f14744484f96a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1659281 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 Review notes: - Please remove the following line from the spec before importing, it is not required to have the explicit Provides: Provides: %{name}-%{version}-doc - The bundled fonts cannot be easily removed, since they are generated as part of the doc build. The package is APPROVED. Please remember to remove the explicit Provides for the -doc subpackage before importing.
Hello Javier, Thank you for the review. I will remove the `Provides` line as you suggested. However, I'm not certain what needs to be done for the `bundled fonts cannot be easily removed` note. May I ask you to clarify what changes I need to make?
(In reply to jkim from comment #7) > Hello Javier, > > Thank you for the review. I will remove the `Provides` line as you > suggested. However, I'm not certain what needs to be done for the `bundled > fonts cannot be easily removed` note. May I ask you to clarify what changes > I need to make? Actually, my comment meant to say you don't need to do anything to remove the bundled fonts. It's a soft requirement for the review, and I was justifying why it should stay as is.
Javier. Great.. Thank you for the clarification.
updated file links Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/johnkim76/rpmbuild_files/master/SPECS/python-dictdiffer.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/johnkim76/rpmbuild_files/raw/master/SRPMS/python-dictdiffer-0.7.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
Hey John, could you please follow on with the repo creation and so? Otherwise I could take on and perform this. Thanks! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
Requested git module and master branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9340
Hi Jason, As you can check on pagure, even if I requested the git module it won't be available as I'm not the bugzilla reporter, so we'd need you to follow up with the repo creation. Please check https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9340 and follow up the creation steps with this and the remaining packages, as the specs and srpms are now fine. Thanks! Daniel
Sorry for the delay, I just returned from PTO this morning. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9398
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dictdiffer
branch requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9403 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9404
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31922233 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31922402