Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01417334-repo2module/repo2module.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01417334-repo2module/repo2module-0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This will generate most of the module metadata that you will need for this repository to be treated as a module. You should examine the contents of modules.yaml and modify it as appropriate. This tool adds all packages in the repository to the API section and the common profile. It will also generate a Defaults object setting this common as the default profile for this stream. It will not set a default stream, so you'll want to do this manually as appropriate. Fedora Account System Username: frostyx
Taking.
repo2module.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl This should be YAML repo2module.x86_64: E: no-binary Hmm. no idea what this means :( I am going to ignore this. repo2module.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/repo2module/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 remove the executable bit please. repo2module.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo2module This would be nice to have, but I will not block a review on this. Otherwise, this looks good.
> repo2module.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl > > This should be YAML The problem is that the yaml is a part of filename - modules.yaml . I cannot uppercase it. > repo2module.x86_64: E: no-binary > > Hmm. no idea what this means :( I am going to ignore this. Me neither, there definitely is a binary > repo2module.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/repo2module/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 > > remove the executable bit please. Actually there is no executable bit. There is a shebang in the cli.py file but it is not executable. I already created a PR removing it - https://github.com/sgallagher/repo2module/pull/2 Therefore the error will disappear on a new release. Is it good enough? (IMHO it is) or should I request a new upstream release before finishing the package review? > repo2module.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo2module > > This would be nice to have, but I will not block a review on this. Agreed, we will add some in the future.
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > > repo2module.x86_64: E: no-binary > > > > Hmm. no idea what this means :( I am going to ignore this. > > Me neither, there definitely is a binary Please, do not ignore this. It's a valid error. There's no binaries in this package, only "test files" / scripts. Since this is a pure-python package, so it should have "BuildArch: noarch", and then you can - and must - also remove "%global debug_package %{nil}". I assume you added "%global debug_package %{nil}" because rpmbuild complained about an empty debug package. This is fixed by marking the package as noarch.
Thank you Fabio, you are totally right about the "%global debug_package %{nil}". I never knew how to fix the error about empty debug packages for pure-python packages, and setting debug_package to nil is the most suggested way of doing it when you try to google a solution. And I believe there is no information about it in the packaging documentation. I will try to send a patch for it. I added "BuildArch: noarch" and it worked perfectly.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01431188-repo2module/repo2module.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01431188-repo2module/repo2module-0.1-2.fc33.src.rpm
> BuildRequires: python3-libdnf > [...] > Requires: python3-libdnf The code actually uses python3-hawkey, not python3-libdnf, since it uses "import hawkey".
Thank you Neal, Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432043-repo2module/repo2module.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/repo2module/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01432043-repo2module/repo2module-0.1-3.fc33.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/modulemd-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01434115-modulemd-tools/modulemd-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/modulemd-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01434115-modulemd-tools/modulemd-tools-0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Tools provided by this package: repo2module - Takes a YUM repository on its input and creates modules.yaml containing YAML module definitions generated for each package. dir2module - Generates a module YAML definition based on essential module information provided via command-line parameters. The packages provided by the module are found in a specified directory or a text file containing their list. Fedora Account System Username: frostyx
Soo, we polished the repo2module package and made it ready for Fedora, so we decided to mess it up again. As you can see, I renamed the package, changed its summary and description and it now temporarily contains also Source1.
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 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 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. [-]: 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). [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. 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. [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. APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/modulemd-tools