Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcX-0.10.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Transport, protocol and framing-independent async RPC client and server implementation. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain
Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe you could look into bug #1662573.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #1) > Are you interested in a review swap? Maybe you could look into bug #1662573. reviewed it.
Thanks. I'll look into your request ASAP.
Wrong bug referenced, see bug #1659777 instead for the review swap. Sorry for confusion.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: python-aiorpcx.spec should be python-aiorpcX.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. => licensecheck.txt is empty?! [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. => OK, no license file provided but setup.py mentions MIT. https://github.com/kyuupichan/aiorpcX/blob/master/setup.py#L28 [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. => OK [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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. => See above. [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 1 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]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) => Maybe a bug in f-r? [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. => OK, see above [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. [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/builder/fedora-review/1662573-python- aiorpcx/srpm-unpacked/python-aiorpcx.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-aiorpcX-0.10.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-aiorpcX-0.10.2-1.fc30.src.rpm python-aiorpcX.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcX.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcX.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcX.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-aiorpcX (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.7dist(attrs) Provides -------- python-aiorpcX: python-aiorpcX python3.7dist(aiorpcx) python3dist(aiorpcx) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/aiorpcX/aiorpcX-0.10.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2bf57fc46ae37d769ab3f5e58ebee4b44acab626e597b5150a201284b9808dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2bf57fc46ae37d769ab3f5e58ebee4b44acab626e597b5150a201284b9808dd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1662573 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
Maybe fedora-review insists to find any %license entry. We'd have to ask at packaging committee.
I've changed package names to be in lower case.
New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx-0.10.2-1.fc30.src.rpm
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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1662573-python- aiorpcx/licensecheck.txt => Please clarify. BSD and Expat is not MIT. [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 1 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => License issue. [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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. => Are there any valueable tests to execute? [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: python-aiorpcx-0.10.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-aiorpcx-0.10.2-1.fc30.src.rpm python-aiorpcx.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync python-aiorpcx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-aiorpcx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.7dist(attrs) Provides -------- python-aiorpcx: python-aiorpcx python3.7dist(aiorpcx) python3dist(aiorpcx) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/aiorpcX/aiorpcX-0.10.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2bf57fc46ae37d769ab3f5e58ebee4b44acab626e597b5150a201284b9808dd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2bf57fc46ae37d769ab3f5e58ebee4b44acab626e597b5150a201284b9808dd Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1662573 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
setup.py and SPEC tell MIT but licensecheck finds BSD and Expat licenses: BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License --------------------------------- aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/curio.py Expat License ------------- aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/framing.py aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/jsonrpc.py aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/session.py aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/socks.py aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/util.py Unknown or generated -------------------- aiorpcX-0.10.2/PKG-INFO aiorpcX-0.10.2/README.rst aiorpcX-0.10.2/aiorpcx/__init__.py aiorpcX-0.10.2/setup.cfg aiorpcX-0.10.2/setup.py
Ping. Any news here?
New Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx.spec New SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx-0.10.5-1.fc30.src.rpm Updated to latest release + added BSD to the licenses. Only one file is under BSD, the rest is MIT.
DownloadError: 'Error 404 downloading https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx-0.10.5-1.fc30.src.rpm'
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) > DownloadError: 'Error 404 downloading > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-aiorpcx-0.10.5-1. > fc30.src.rpm' It works for me here.
OK, looks good now. APPROVED Question: What's the difference between MIT and Expat licenses?
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiorpcx
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > OK, looks good now. APPROVED > > Question: What's the difference between MIT and Expat licenses? I have absolutely no idea, there is no Expat license in our list.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #17) > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > > OK, looks good now. APPROVED > > > > Question: What's the difference between MIT and Expat licenses? > > I have absolutely no idea, there is no Expat license in our list. Please ask legal team at Red Hat. I'm in assumption MIT includes Expat. https://tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #18) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #17) > > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > > > OK, looks good now. APPROVED > > > > > > Question: What's the difference between MIT and Expat licenses? > > > > I have absolutely no idea, there is no Expat license in our list. > > Please ask legal team at Red Hat. I'm in assumption MIT includes Expat. > https://tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license But how is Expat relevant here? Project is licensed under MIT. Plus one file which has been copied from other project which is BSD.
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #19) … > But how is Expat relevant here? Project is licensed under MIT. Plus one file > which has been copied from other project which is BSD. See comment #10.