Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/preproc/fedora-31-x86_64/01282742-preproc/preproc.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/preproc/fedora-31-x86_64/01282742-preproc/preproc-0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Simple text preprocessor implementing a very basic templating language. You can use bash code enclosed in triple braces in a text file and then pipe content of that file to preproc. preproc will replace each of the tags with stdout of the executed code and print the final rendered result to its own stdout. Fedora Account System Username: clime
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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/chedi/1809644-preproc/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 [-]: 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. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: 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]: 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: preproc-0.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm preproc-0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renderred -> rendered, rend erred, rend-erred preproc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting preproc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out preproc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renderred -> rendered, rend erred, rend-erred preproc.src: W: no-%build-section preproc.src: W: invalid-url Source0: preproc-0.1.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_US.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out preproc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renderred -> rendered, rend erred, rend-erred preproc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://pagure.io/rpkg-util.git <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- preproc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyparsing Provides -------- preproc: preproc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1809644 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, PHP, C/C++, Java, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
If you have some time please check the folowing packages review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023
Juts curious, why don't you use Python 3 on RHEL/EPEL as well?
I still have epel7 rather associated with python2. I believe that's the default python there still (at least in a container). I believe for rhel8/epel8 I am enabling python3.
If "default python" means /usr/bin/python than yes. Other than that, both versions are available in RHEL 7 and python3-pyparsing is in EPEL 7 (however I don't see that one in EPEL 6).
@chedi toueiti I took review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 Is this package (preproc) approved by you? I didn't see any particular issues according to the review you provided. Please, let me know
@Miro Hroncok Is it ok to provide python2 script for epel7? If so, I would keep it like this because then the package doesn't require installation of python3 into minimal rhel7/centos7 environments.
> Is it ok to provide python2 script for epel7? Totally OK. I was just curious. Sorry about the noise.
@clime7 Thanks for taking a look at it, as for this package everything seems ok to me.
@chedi Great! Thank you very much. I have another package for review but still working on it so maybe I will take your second package as well but we will see. Thanks so far!
@chedi If you can take this review as well https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 I will gladly take review of your second package (python-git-url-parse).
(In reply to chedi toueiti from comment #9) > @clime7 > > Thanks for taking a look at it, as for this package everything seems ok to > me. You need to assign it to yourself and set fedora-review to + in the flags if you think it is ok.
It is also customary to set the state to POST, because flags (incl. fedora-review+) are not easily visible in bug lists, Setting the state to POST makes it easy to filter review out review bugs which don't need review anymore.
@Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek Thanks for the guiding, I'm quite new to the review process
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/preproc