Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866155-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866155-python-apprise/python-apprise-0.7.3-1.fc31.nuxref.src.rpm Description: Apprise allows you to send a notification to almost all of the most popular notification services available to us today such as: Telegram, Pushbullet, Slack, Twitter, etc. It's a Python based notification library and additionally contains a supporting CLI for system administrators to use too. (https://github.com/caronc/apprise). I was able to build the RPM without problems on epel7, f28, f29, and rawhide using koji. Fedora Account System Username: lead2gold
The wiki mentions passing along working koji (--scratch) builds. No problem, below is all passing builds: * epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33369676 * f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33369716 * f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33369791 * rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33369860
>Group: Development/Languages >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) >... >Group: Development/Utils >... >%clean Not used in Fedora. Drop 'em. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections >URL: http://github.com/caronc/apprise I'd change this to https. >Source0: https://github.com/caronc/apprise/archive/v%{version}/apprise-%{version}.tar.gz You can reuse the %{URL} here to make the line shorter. >LANG=en_US.utf8 PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python2_sitelib} coverage2 run ./setup.py test I believe this may require you to add the en_US langpack via BuildRequires. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot >%defattr(-,root,root,-) Not needed. These are the default values. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_permissions
Also LICENSE files must be included with %license not %doc
Also 0.7.4 was released this past day.
Thank you guys for all your feedback. It was also suggested on the mailing lists to not use flake8 as it's to harsh to fail a %test because of a pep8 issue. I couldn't agree with this more, so i dropped this to just be py.test references instead. I'll satisfy my own PEP8 OCD with travisCI and not with RPMS. I should add that i'm also the developer of this product. So yes i realize i pushed a new version out but supplied you with the last one. It was kind of happening at the same time. I addressed all of the comments you identified above (including the new version reference): Updated Spec: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866973-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Here is the Koji output: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411608 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411610 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411612 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411614 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33411616 Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lead2gold/apprise/build/866973/ On a side note; the license was recently changed (About a month or so ago) from GPLv3 to MIT. I didn't realize i didn't update this on the header of my SPEC file. I'll update this on the next build. Thank you guys again for all of your feedback!
Is LANG=en_US.utf8 mandatory? What happens with LANG=C.UTF-8? I'll let Artur finish the review if he wishes.
Also remove .nuxref in Release:
@Robert, I dropped the .nuxref and changed the LANG= line to reflect your suggestion and there doesn't appear to be any issues. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00866987-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Koji: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412539 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412541 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412543 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412545 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412547 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lead2gold/apprise/build/866987/
- In that case you can remove: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} > 7 # This package is not included with EPEL7 # glibc-all-langpacks used for LANG= line in %test reference # https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-\ # all_from_buildroot#Remove_glibc-all-langpacks_from_buildroot BuildRequires: glibc-all-langpacks %endif - Also drop Group: Development/Languages and: BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) like Artur said.
Robert, thanks for your patients, round 4 is a lucky one perhaps? :) SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00867003-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec COPR (all building): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/867003/ epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412869 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412871 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412873 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412875 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33412877 Chris
I'll let Artur finish if he wishes.
@Robert: Looking at Chris's intro e-mail from the devel list and taking a quick peek at the FAS groups, I believe that Chris needs to be sponsored. Since I'm not a member of the sponsor group - but you are - I believe it'll be best if you finish this one.
Guys, I also dropped all 'python-coverage', and 'python-tox' reference since I'm no longer using that in the %test section (so spec got much cleaner). This allowed me to enable testing for f28 and epel (previously disabled because of reference to tox). But then 'epel7' couldn't pass 3 tests because they reference features only available in newer builds of 'py.test' and 'requests'. SO then i created a patch file for epel7 to work around this which means i had to drop the %autosetup in the %prep section (so i could JUST apply the patch to epel7 builds). It's been changed to just %setup so i could wrap the %patchX entry. Anyway, there is no doubt i broke some standards here introducing the patch file. I'm not sure how to properly host the .patch file (as it is now it's just dropped in my SOURCES directory prior to my build; it's referenced relatively in .spec). Is this satisfactory? I'll attach the spec to this ticket. Everything still builds nicely with this additional clean-up. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-30-i386/00867578-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/867578/ Koji: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33443066 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33443069 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33443070 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33443071 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33443073
Created attachment 1543444 [details] Patch to allow apprise to run unit-tests for 100% coverage in epel7 This is ONLY for running unit tests on epel7 in %test section. It has absolutely no value outside of that and does not obstruct the actual source code deployed otherwise.
- Typo: %package -n python2-apprise-cli Summary: Apprise CLI Tool Python 3 binary Should be 2 here - Remove the Group: everywhere - Typo in both cli descriptions: python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US notificatios -> notifications - Remove the shebang in prep: python3-apprise-cli.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/cli.py /usr/bin/env python python3-apprise-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python2 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ===== 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-apprise/review- python-apprise/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. [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 20480 bytes in 1 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 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-apprise , python3-apprise-cli [?]: 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-apprise-0.7.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python3-apprise-cli-0.7.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-apprise-0.7.4-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.opt-1.pyc python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.pyc python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US notificatios -> notifications, notification, ossification python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-apprise-cli.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/cli.py /usr/bin/env python python3-apprise-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apprise 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.
Thanks for the very detailed report. - Spelling mistakes and shebang issued fixed. The shebang issue was done through a patch (just because i don't want to spin a whole new release). It is however already fixed upstream here: https://github.com/caronc/apprise/commit/764aa5393ffe9e09b7da6bde82078b88e39e5e58 - I'll attach the patch file for transparency anyway :) With respect to this comment: - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python2 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ epel7 is the only one that fits this bill unfortunately; I've had to add the line at the head of the spec that reads: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 %global with_python3 0 %endif If I remove it, i get the failure identified here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463886 DEBUG util.py:556: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:09 ago on Wed Mar 13 23:50:11 2019. DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: 'python36-requests-oauthlib' DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: 'python36-oauthlib' DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: 'python36-markdown' DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: No matching package to install: 'python36-pytest-runner' DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Not all dependencies satisfied DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: Some packages could not be found. But... if we put that line back we go back to all green lights; perhaps these are missing packages upstream? Maybe i should report them in another ticket? Anyway... green lighting output (with applied changes): ====================================================== SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00868010-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Koji: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463590 f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463592 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463593 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463596 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463598 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lead2gold/apprise/build/868010/ rpmlint (as of now) *.rpm produces ================================== python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.opt-1.pyc python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.pyc python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-apprise-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apprise 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. ---- I can look into creating a man page; for now would it be satisfactory to just identify this as a task on my git page (in the ticket system) and get to it for the next release?
Created attachment 1543764 [details] shebang patch just created for this release to handle rpmlint issue This has been fixed upstream already here: https://github.com/caronc/apprise/commit/764aa5393ffe9e09b7da6bde82078b88e39e5e58 Thus the next official packaging of apprise will allow for the removal of this patch.
(In reply to Chris Caron from comment #16) > Thanks for the very detailed report. > - Spelling mistakes and shebang issued fixed. The shebang issue was done > through a patch (just because i don't want to spin a whole new release). It > is however already fixed upstream here: > https://github.com/caronc/apprise/commit/ > 764aa5393ffe9e09b7da6bde82078b88e39e5e58 > - I'll attach the patch file for transparency anyway :) > > With respect to this comment: > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python2 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ > > epel7 is the only one that fits this bill unfortunately; I've had to add the > line at the head of the spec that reads: > %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 > %global with_python3 0 > %endif > > If I remove it, i get the failure identified here: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33463886 > Disregard that error, it's a bug I need to fix on the latest fedora-review. It's a beta test version so we're ironing things out. I should have removed it.
Robert, I stuck with just setting a Provides: entry to the python2-apprise-cli and python3-apprise-cli because I couldn't think of a clever way to not have a %package conflict if i renamed both of them to just 'apprise'. You can check it my workaround here. SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00868455-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33494613 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33494615 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33494617 f31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33494619 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33494621 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/868455 You'll be happy to know i built a man page too to start with; I'll probably need more to explain how configuration files work, but it's a start and also greatly reduces your rpmlint warnings to just 2 now: python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.opt-1.pyc python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.pyc I'll need to Google these warnings because i don't quite know what it refers to at this time. The man page (to clear up 2 of the warnings) was added as an additional Source which has also already been pushed upstream; so it will be bundled in upcoming releases. As always, I respect any advice or feedback you have! Chris
Created attachment 1544222 [details] man page added to help with rpmlint warnings Just attaching the man page created as a Source1: directive in the RPM which will be dropped in the next release as it's already been included for future packaging. I created a branch here: https://github.com/caronc/apprise/tree/external-packaging-support which i will merge when this process is over (hopefully successfully :) )
- Remove Group: everywhere, still here - This is not needed: %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7 # Backwards Compatibility Provides: python-apprise = %{version} Obsoletes:python-apprise < %{version} %endif # rhel I didn't realise it was a binary, I still think you should use apprise as a *single* package, but you need to rework the conditional here, Py 2 and Py 3 being exclusionary to each other. Remove && 0%{?fedora} > 29 and add RHEL8 %if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8 # Python v2 Support dropped %global with_python2 0 %endif # fedora %package -n apprise Summary: Apprise CLI Tool %if 0%{?with_python2} Requires: python2-click >= 5.0 Requires: python2-apprise = %{version}-%{release} %endif # with_python2 %if 0%{?with_python3} Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-click >= 5.0 Requires: python3-apprise = %{version}-%{release} %endif # with_python3 %description -n apprise An accompanied CLI tool that can be used as part of Apprise to issue notifications from the command line to you favorite services. […] %files -n apprise %{_mandir}/man1/apprise.1* %{_bindir}/apprise %if 0%{?with_python2} %{python2_sitelib}/apprise/cli.* %endif # with_python2 %if 0%{?with_python3} %{python3_sitelib}/apprise/cli.* %endif # with_python3
Robert, > Remove Group: everywhere Oops; no excuses for this one. Fixed now Thank you for your suggestion; all of your advice has been applied to the below. I really like the idea of having the -cli building as apprise too! However... soon the .spec file is going to be 0 bytes in size at the rate you're condensing it. :) All green lights: SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lead2gold/apprise/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00868559-python-apprise/python-apprise.spec Koji: epel7: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33499792 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33499794 f30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33499797 f31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33499799 rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33499801 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/868559 We're up to something like 8 attempts at this; but who's counting? ;)
- You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit overkill for one line. - %{__install} → install Package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group (Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you) 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-apprise/review- python-apprise/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. [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 20480 bytes in 1 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in apprise , python3-apprise [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: apprise-0.7.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python3-apprise-0.7.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-apprise-0.7.4-1.fc31.src.rpm apprise.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Apprise python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.opt-1.pyc python3-apprise.noarch: W: python-bytecode-without-source /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/apprise/__pycache__/cli.cpython-37.pyc python-apprise.src:208: W: macro-in-comment %{__install} python-apprise.src:209: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} python-apprise.src:209: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} python-apprise.src:209: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 45, tab: line 209) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
> - You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit overkill for one line. This will go away in the next version as it's fixed upstream anyway. > - %{__install} → install I didn't realise we weren't supposed to use %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__cp}; i always thought this was a safer approach. Noted though, I'll fix this in the spec file too. > You still need to find a sponsor: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > (Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you) I honestly thought the email you sent me entitled 'Fedora packaging sponsorship' and the full review of another package you had me do for you was hinting the possibility that 'you' might be that person. Regardless, I'm still thankful. Thank you for taking the time anyway to review my product and approving it. I'll follow through with the wiki link you shared and see where it takes me. Chris
(In reply to Chris Caron from comment #24) > > - You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit overkill for one line. > > This will go away in the next version as it's fixed upstream anyway. > > > - %{__install} → install > > I didn't realise we weren't supposed to use %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__cp}; > i always thought this was a safer approach. Noted though, I'll fix this in > the spec file too. > > > You still need to find a sponsor: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > > > (Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you) > > I honestly thought the email you sent me entitled 'Fedora packaging > sponsorship' and the full review of another package you had me do for you > was hinting the possibility that 'you' might be that person. yes it is a possibility, you might still do other informal reviews and post them here to get sponsored, in order to show that you grok the guidelines.
Sponsored.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-apprise