Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-pypi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: PyPI frontend for upt (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).
- You're missing the Python provide macro. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname} Summary: PyPI front-end for upt %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group. Issues: ======= - There are installation errors (see below). - The package has tests, run them in `%check`. - You defined `Summary` twice. - I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under `Requires`. 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 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Eclipse Public License (v1.0) Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0) Boost Software License (v1.0) Aladdin Free Public License CeCILL-B License GNU Affero General Public License (v3)", "Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt- pypi/licensecheck.txt [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. [?]: 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 2 files. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: 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]: 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. [ ]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.19 starting (python version = 3.7.4)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.19 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.19 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-pypi/results/python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-pypi/results/python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
(In reply to Ege Güneş from comment #2) > This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group. > > > Issues: > ======= > - There are installation errors (see below). > - The package has tests, run them in `%check`. > - You defined `Summary` twice. > - I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under > `Requires`. - Install fails because upt is not available (I explicitly added the Requires tag, thanks to your comment, even if the Python dependency generator did its job) - The tests will also fail as it also upt. I have added some conditional tests in my SPECs (to disable them until all dependencies are in Fedora repositories). - Defined twice because of sub-package for python3, not sure if I could remove it (see the example from the guideline [1]) - Correct, I modified all my SPEC to have something more coherent Thank you for your time! [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_python_spec_file
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - You're missing the Python provide macro. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_the_python_provide_macro > > %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname} > Summary: PyPI front-end for upt > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}} Thanks, fixed! Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-pypi.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Eclipse Public License (v1.0) Common Development and Distribution License (v1.0) Boost Software License (v1.0) Aladdin Free Public License CeCILL-B License GNU Affero General Public License (v3)", "Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-upt-pypi/review- python-upt-pypi/licensecheck.txt [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 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-upt-pypi
FEDORA-2019-ac4c6ec06e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-ac4c6ec06e
FEDORA-2019-22dfe2cd7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-22dfe2cd7d
python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-ac4c6ec06e
python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-22dfe2cd7d
python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.