Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/psss/did/master/did.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/psss/did/releases/download/0.14/did-0.14-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: What did you do last week, month, year? Fedora Account System Username: psss
This is a re-review to unretire did: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8913
Spec file sane. I'd recommend using %{url} in the Source url to make it shorter, but that is optional. <del>I wonder why the hardcoded runtime requires, are the automatic requires not working?</del> Oh, there is no setup.py or pyproject.toml, no automatic requires. %{python3_sitelib}/* should not be used, use a amore specific %{python3_sitelib}/did/ or %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}/ please. Running automated checks.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 - In upstream, you have tests. You should run them in %check. ===== 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. [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 3 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]: 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 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: 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. [ ]: 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. ===== 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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: [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: did-0.14-1.fc32.noarch.rpm did-0.14-1.fc32.src.rpm did.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C did did.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C did 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- did.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C did did.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/psss/did <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. OK. invalid-url bugus, no interwebz in my mock. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/psss/did/releases/download/0.14/did-0.14.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cc8e4b7d1638738b262ebc014dcf4fd06f3fb671463a04cc59045238b2b43fd5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cc8e4b7d1638738b262ebc014dcf4fd06f3fb671463a04cc59045238b2b43fd5 Requires -------- did (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-bugzilla python3-dateutil python3-feedparser python3-google-api-client python3-httplib2 python3-requests-gssapi Sane. Provides -------- did: did Sane.
One more suggestion: Replace BuildRequires: git with BuildRequires: /usr/bin/git (or git-core) to save you some unneeded perl build dependencies.
Thanks for the feedback. All issues should now be fixed: https://github.com/psss/did/commit/630b239 Updated srpm: https://github.com/psss/did/releases/download/0.14/did-0.14-1.fc29.src.rpm Successfully built in copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/psss/did/build/1071415/
1. Why do you have both: Requires: python3-bugzilla Requires: python3-httplib2 Requires: python3-requests-gssapi And: %?python_enable_dependency_generator ? 2. You miss BuildRequires: python3-setuptools - it is now transitively pulled by python3-devel, so the build might work, but it cannot be relied upon.
$ rpm -qp --requires did-0.14-1.fc32.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.8 python3-bugzilla python3-httplib2 python3-requests-gssapi python3.8dist(python-dateutil) python3.8dist(requests) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies "Automatically determined dependencies MUST NOT be duplicated by manual dependencies."
If you need those deps for EPEL, you can guard them by %if %{undefined __pythondist_requires}
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > $ rpm -qp --requires did-0.14-1.fc32.noarch.rpm > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) = 3.8 > python3-bugzilla > python3-httplib2 > python3-requests-gssapi > python3.8dist(python-dateutil) > python3.8dist(requests) > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_package_dependencies > > "Automatically determined dependencies MUST NOT be duplicated by manual > dependencies." Scratch that, those are different. Defined as extra in setup.py.
The only remaining issue is missing BR python3-setuptools.
Ah, I see. Should now be fixed: https://github.com/psss/did/commit/88cf84a
Package APPROVED.
Thanks for the review. Package has been successfully built: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1405604 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3fcbccdf5