Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser-0.23.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/eerimoq/textparser Description: A text parser written in Python. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41053631 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-textparser-0.23.0-1.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-textparser-0.23.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab
I can review this package. Initial recommendations / suggestions: 1) You could replace the URL prefix in Source0 with %{url}. 2) Is there a reason why you're not using the sources from pypi? %{pypi_source} should work, unless the sdist doesn't contain test files (which is sometimes the case). 3) Missing \n before %prep? :) 4) Please use trailing slashes for directories in %files: %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info/ Or use this, so you don't need the glob: %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ Let me know when you're ready for the formal review.
Thanks for the feedback. This spec file is also done in the style as the pyp2rpm tool is doing it. * Tue Jan 28 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.23.0-2 - Update source URL - Fix ownership and style (rhbz#1795071) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc31.src.rpm
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > This spec file is also done in the style as the pyp2rpm tool is doing it. Sure, but there's no reason why humans can't be better than simple automated tool :) Running full review now.
fedora-review complains that the source file has a different MD5 checksum than a fresh download. I can verify that manually ... can you check what's going on?
I re-uploaded the files.
Thanks. Package Approved. 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. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [-]: 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-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc32.noarch.rpm python-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-textparser.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/eerimoq/textparser <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/eerimoq/textparser/archive/0.23.0/textparser-0.23.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bb67fce654851bb1270e12ef9127c5d48367741b7cb1b721efe5fed1d06a0574 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bb67fce654851bb1270e12ef9127c5d48367741b7cb1b721efe5fed1d06a0574 Requires -------- python3-textparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-textparser: python-textparser python3-textparser python3.8dist(textparser) python3dist(textparser) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1795071 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, PHP, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-textparser
FEDORA-2020-77be7dcf0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-77be7dcf0d
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1590cef2a9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1590cef2a9
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.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-2020-77be7dcf0d
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.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-2020-1590cef2a9
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.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-2020-0b731b2d88
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-textparser-0.23.0-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.