spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/python-inject-4.3.1-1/python-inject.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/python-inject-4.3.1-1/python-inject-4.3.1-1.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52225057 Description: Dependency injection - the python way, the good way. Not a port of Guice or Spring. Fedora Account System Username: suve
COPR build for several Fedora releases and archs: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/cozy/build/1686625/ > BuildRequires: python3-devel > BuildRequires: python3-setuptools BuildRequires for python3-setuptools should have the following form: > BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) > %if 0%{?with_tests} > BuildRequires: python3-nose > %endif Same here: > BuildRequires: python3dist(nose) > %if 0%{?with_tests} > %check > # This file is missing from the PyPi tarballs, but is required for tests to work > # Taken from: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ivankorobkov/python-inject/%{version}/test/__init__.py This is quite risky, because if the file ever changes, you will need to hack it into the SPEC file again. Would it be possible to use release tarballs from GitHub as Source0? Also, not sure why tests were made conditional. I thought tests are always supposed to run if possible. Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-nose is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Review: Check if it's possible to run nose tests via pytest. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python- inject/python-inject/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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Review: There is a couple of minor issues at the moment. [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 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 Review: Yes, but see earlier comments. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: %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-inject-4.3.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-inject-4.3.1-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-inject.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/inject/py.typed python-inject.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Review: Is the py.typed file needed for anything or is it a placeholder? Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-inject Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/I/Inject/Inject-4.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f996f2c9ed2082af776ddf6b528d97036898ac63040385feb1d12286a73c3cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f996f2c9ed2082af776ddf6b528d97036898ac63040385feb1d12286a73c3cc Requires -------- python3-inject (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-inject: python-inject python3-inject python3.9-inject python3.9dist(inject) python3dist(inject)
>BuildRequires for python3-setuptools should have the following form: >"BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)" Changed. > Review: Check if it's possible to run nose tests via pytest. Yep. Works. >This is quite risky, because if the file ever changes, you will need to hack it into the SPEC file again. Would it be possible to use release tarballs from GitHub as Source0? For the time being, I just submitted an issue to the GitHub repo. If the author decides that's not something they want to bother themselves with, or that it's difficult to solve, then switching to GH for sources isn't much of a problem. New links below. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/python-inject-4.3.1-2/python-inject.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/python-inject-4.3.1-2/python-inject-4.3.1-2.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52418172
Looks good. Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-inject
FEDORA-2020-f22aa1693c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f22aa1693c
FEDORA-2020-ab72625959 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ab72625959
FEDORA-2020-f22aa1693c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-f22aa1693c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f22aa1693c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-ab72625959 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-ab72625959 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ab72625959 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-f22aa1693c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-ab72625959 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.