Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-prettytable.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-prettytable-0.7.2-18.src.rpm Description: PrettyTable is a simple Python library designed to make it quick and easy to represent tabular data in visually appealing ASCII tables. It was inspired by the ASCII tables used in the PostgreSQL shell psql. PrettyTable allows for selection of which columns are to be printed, independent alignment of columns (left or right justified or centred) and printing of "sub-tables" by specifying a row range. Fedora Account System Username: robert Note: This package is only intended for EPEL 7, not for Fedora. The existing python-prettytable package in Fedora can not be branched for EPEL 7, because a same named source RPM package is part of RHEL. See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 for details. The python3-prettytable EPEL package is mostly modelled like python-prettytable in Fedora.
- Remove the python shebang in %prep: python3-prettytable.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py /usr/bin/env python python3-prettytable.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-prettytable/review-python- prettytable/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 30720 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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. [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-prettytable-0.7.2-18.fc31.noarch.rpm python-prettytable-0.7.2-18.fc31.src.rpm python3-prettytable.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US psql -> SQL python3-prettytable.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centred -> centered, cent red, cent-red python3-prettytable.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py /usr/bin/env python python3-prettytable.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python-prettytable.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US psql -> SQL python-prettytable.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US centred -> centered, cent red, cent-red 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Remove the python shebang in %prep: > > python3-prettytable.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter > /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-prettytable.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/prettytable.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-prettytable.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/python3-prettytable-0.7.2-19.src.rpm I'll also create a PR for python-prettytable in Fedora (once approved), because the issue has been just inherited from there.
Package approved.
Thank you very much for the review! https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prettytable/pull-request/4 is the PR against python-prettytable in Fedora.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-prettytable
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-2755335642 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-2755335642
python3-prettytable-0.7.2-19.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-EPEL-2019-2755335642
python3-prettytable-0.7.2-19.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.