Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/master/rpmbuild/SPECS/protonvpn-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/blob/master/rpmbuild/SRPMS/protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-4.fc31.src.rpm?raw=true Description: ProtonVPN-CLI is a full rewrite of the bash protonvpn-cli in Python, which adds more features and functionality with the purpose of improving readability, speed and reliability. Fedora Account System Username: jflory7 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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). [?]: 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 installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?]: Buildroot is not present [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-4.fc33.noarch.rpm protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-4.fc33.src.rpm protonvpn-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protonvpn 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- protonvpn-cli.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ProtonVPN/protonvpn-cli-ng <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> protonvpn-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protonvpn 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ProtonVPN/protonvpn-cli-ng/archive/v2.2.2/protonvpn-cli-ng-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6aec40b40602f0d577097728cacd2080c2206da04625d707ab4a39ba9c2153a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6aec40b40602f0d577097728cacd2080c2206da04625d707ab4a39ba9c2153a Requires -------- protonvpn-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 openvpn python(abi) python3 python3.8dist(docopt) python3.8dist(pythondialog) python3.8dist(requests) python3.8dist(setuptools) Provides -------- protonvpn-cli: protonvpn-cli python3.8dist(protonvpn-cli) python3dist(protonvpn-cli) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -D EPEL7=1 --copr-build 1282977 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Java, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
>Group: Development/Libraries >BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot Those are not used in Fedora. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections The Requires: match what's mentioned in the upstream README, but looking at "requirements.txt", you're missing a Requires for python3-requests and python3-docopt. Maybe ask about this upstream?
Hi Artur, thanks for taking a close look at the package. I updated the package and built it from the updated SPEC in COPR: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/master/rpmbuild/SPECS/protonvpn-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/blob/master/rpmbuild/SRPMS/protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-5.fc31.src.rpm?raw=true COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/1309136 I'll update the docs when I make a PR to the upstream README when this package is available.
- This should not be necessary, it is handled by the Python dependency generator: Requires: python3 Requires: python3-docopt Requires: python3-requests rpm -q --requires -p protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-5.fc33.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 /usr/bin/python3 1 openvpn 1 python(abi) = 3.8 1 python3.8dist(docopt) 1 python3.8dist(pythondialog) 1 python3.8dist(requests) 1 python3.8dist(setuptools) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 As you can see python3-dialog is also required by the dependency generator. 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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/protonvpn- cli/review-protonvpn-cli/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 1 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 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-5.fc33.noarch.rpm protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-5.fc33.src.rpm protonvpn-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protonvpn 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Hi, so do you suggest just dropping the `python3-dialog` Requires?
Yes it is already Required automatically.
Thanks Robert. I updated the package and built it in COPR from the updated SPEC: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/master/rpmbuild/SPECS/protonvpn-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/blob/master/rpmbuild/SRPMS/protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-6.fc31.src.rpm?raw=true COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jflory7/protonvpn-cli/build/1321968/
- As I said before, adding these is not necessary as it is handled by the Python dependency generator: Requires: python3 Requires: python3-docopt Requires: python3-requests Package is approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Thanks. New version pushed: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/master/rpmbuild/SPECS/protonvpn-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/blob/master/rpmbuild/SRPMS/protonvpn-cli-2.2.2-7.fc31.src.rpm?raw=true COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jflory7/protonvpn-cli/build/1322225/ Although, I am a little confused how that works. In what part of the RPM spec file does the Python dependency generator know to pull in those packages? Is it because `BuildRequires: python3-devel`? I am curious to understand why so I won't make the same mistake in the future. Understanding why this is will help me remember. :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protonvpn-cli
(In reply to Justin W. Flory from comment #8) > Thanks. New version pushed: > > Spec URL: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/master/rpmbuild/SPECS/ > protonvpn-cli.spec > SRPM URL: > https://github.com/jwflory/rpmbuild/blob/master/rpmbuild/SRPMS/protonvpn-cli- > 2.2.2-7.fc31.src.rpm?raw=true > COPR Build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jflory7/protonvpn-cli/build/1322225/ > > Although, I am a little confused how that works. In what part of the RPM > spec file does the Python dependency generator know to pull in those > packages? Is it because `BuildRequires: python3-devel`? I am curious to > understand why so I won't make the same mistake in the future. Understanding > why this is will help me remember. :) Not sure how it works, the feature was described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators
Neat! This is what I was looking for. I learned something new about Python packaging today, thanks!
FEDORA-2020-3734d61038 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3734d61038
FEDORA-2020-8878710317 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8878710317
FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-370bbcab84 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-370bbcab84
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-944d23ac95 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-944d23ac95
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-944d23ac95 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-944d23ac95 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-8878710317 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8878710317 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8878710317 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-370bbcab84 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-370bbcab84 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3734d61038 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-3734d61038 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3734d61038 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-3734d61038 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-8878710317 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-3052b31eed has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-944d23ac95 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-370bbcab84 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.