Spec URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/satyr.spec SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.el8.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm COPR repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkutlak/a-el8/build/1028077/ Description: This package provides Python 3 bindings for satyr. Fedora Account System Username: mkutlak Upstream: https://github.com/abrt/satyr This package is intended only for EPEL-8.
python-satyr.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python binding for satyr. python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> micro reports, micro-reports, misreports python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports Error checking signature of python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK python-satyr.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-satyr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
I would suggest: - make %{?_smp_mflags} + %make_build - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} + %make_install
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: satyr.spec should be python-satyr.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: the library is only used for the bindings, not development. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 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 [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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: the subpackage is the only actual package, N/A. [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. Note: not the absolute latest, but the latest that makes sense for ABRT Analytics. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. Note: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37477975 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: top-level %define, behaves identically to a %global. [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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [!]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /tmp/1748967-satyr/srpm-unpacked/satyr.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-satyr-0.26-2.fc30.x86_64.rpm python-satyr-debugsource-0.26-2.fc30.x86_64.rpm python-satyr-0.26-2.fc30.src.rpm python3-satyr.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/a4/2b21aed05c0529a01bb6e489cebb70349fec0e ../../../../usr/lib64/libsatyr.so.3.0.0 python3-satyr.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/ca/2ef9ba415c57eccade07c11ba23ef2f31c94f0 ../../../../usr/bin/satyr python-satyr.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python binding for satyr. python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> micro reports, micro-reports, misreports python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports python-satyr.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-satyr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-satyr-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/abrt/satyr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-satyr.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/abrt/satyr <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-satyr.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/a4/2b21aed05c0529a01bb6e489cebb70349fec0e ../../../../usr/lib64/libsatyr.so.3.0.0 python3-satyr.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/.build-id/ca/2ef9ba415c57eccade07c11ba23ef2f31c94f0 ../../../../usr/bin/satyr 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-satyr: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/satyr/_satyr3.so Requires -------- python3-satyr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libdw.so.1()(64bit) libelf.so.1()(64bit) librpm.so.9()(64bit) librpmio.so.9()(64bit) libsatyr.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) satyr python-satyr-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-satyr: python3-satyr python3-satyr(x86-64) python-satyr-debugsource: python-satyr-debugsource python-satyr-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (2226962) last change: 2019-05-28 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1748967 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> python-satyr.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python binding for satyr. Fixed. > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> > micro reports, micro-reports, misreports > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> > Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports https://abrt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ureport.html > Error checking signature of python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: > python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK > python-satyr.src: E: invalid-spec-name Fixed the name of the spec file. > python-satyr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: > Not Found Fixed the path to the source. > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. > I would suggest: > > - make %{?_smp_mflags} > + %make_build > > - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > + %make_install Changed. Updated spec, COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkutlak/a-el8/build/1028520/ Spec URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr.spec SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.el8.src.rpm
(In reply to Martin Kutlak from comment #4) > > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> > > micro reports, micro-reports, misreports > > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> > > Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports > > https://abrt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ureport.html It’s not like linking to prior art will make it more okay. It simply is not a dictionary word.
> It’s not like linking to prior art will make it more okay. It simply is not > a dictionary word. I just wanted to point out that it is not meant to be a word from a dictionary. It is µReport not µ-Report, nor µ Report.
(In reply to Martin Kutlak from comment #6) > > It’s not like linking to prior art will make it more okay. It simply is not > > a dictionary word. > > I just wanted to point out that it is not meant to be a word from a > dictionary. > > It is µReport not µ-Report, nor µ Report. But those are completely separate. The warning is strictly about the expansion of µReport into a more-readable term (micro-report).
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-satyr
Koji build completed successfully: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37581167 Bodhi update created: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-451cd14fd6
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-451cd14fd6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-451cd14fd6
python-satyr-0.26-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 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-2019-451cd14fd6
python-satyr-0.26-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.