Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mgrabovs/cachelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01589359-python-cachelib/python-cachelib.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mgrabovs/cachelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01589359-python-cachelib/python-cachelib-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A collection of cache libraries with a common API. Extracted from Werkzeug. Fedora Account System Username: mgrabovs Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mgrabovs/cachelib/build/1589359/ Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48266966
> %global modname cachelib > %global srcname cachelib Is both a %modname and a %srcname required? I've seen only %srcname in Python package SPECs. > %global _description \ > A collection of cache libraries with a common API.\ > Extracted from Werkzeug. You can probably use the %{expand:} macro like so: %global _description %{expand: A collection of cache libraries with a common API. Extracted from Werkzeug.} That way you don't have to add backslashes. Does the package have any tests worth adding to the %check phase? The rest looks okay. Below the full review matrix: 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. Note: Using prebuilt packages Review: tested in mock and by submitter in Koji and COPR. [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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-cachelib/python- cachelib/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]: 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 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 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. [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 Review: Does not apply here? ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-cachelib-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-cachelib-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-cachelib Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/cachelib/cachelib-0.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47e95a67d68c729cbad63285a790a06f0e0d27d71624c6e44c1ec3456bb4476f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47e95a67d68c729cbad63285a790a06f0e0d27d71624c6e44c1ec3456bb4476f Requires -------- python3-cachelib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-cachelib: python-cachelib python3-cachelib python3.9-cachelib python3.9dist(cachelib) python3dist(cachelib)
Thanks for the review, Andy. See below for links to updated spec file and SRPM. (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Is both a %modname and a %srcname required? I've seen only %srcname in > Python package SPECs. I've removed %modname and kept %srcname only. > You can probably use the %{expand:} macro like so: > %global _description %{expand: > A collection of cache libraries with a common API. > Extracted from Werkzeug.} > > That way you don't have to add backslashes. I found the description to be short enough to bear two backslashes previously, but now I've rewritten it with the macro. > Does the package have any tests worth adding to the %check phase? Unfortunately, it does not. There were some tests in the original Werkzeug, but they were not migrated with the rest of the code. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mgrabovs/cachelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01591433-python-cachelib/python-cachelib.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mgrabovs/cachelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01591433-python-cachelib/python-cachelib-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
Looks good, package approved!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cachelib
Now available in Rawhide.