Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/python-bashate.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/python-bashate-2.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: It is a pep8 equivalent for bash scripts. This program attempts to be an automated style checker for bash scripts to fill the same part of code review that pep8 does in most OpenStack projects. It started from humble beginnings in the DevStack project, and will continue to evolve over time. Fedora Account System Username: mikelo2 Package was part of Fedora in the past: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bashate
- Use: Source0: %{pypi_source} - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in %install - Remove the shebang: python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bashate See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-bashate/review-python- bashate/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-bashate [?]: 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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-bashate-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-bashate-doc-2.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-bashate-2.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-bashate.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/.E005_excluded python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E001_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E002_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E003_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E003_good.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_bad_custom_length.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E006_good.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E010_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E010_good.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E011_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E011_good.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E040_syntax_error.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/E041_bad.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/comments.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/heredoc_ignore.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/tests/samples/legacy_sample.sh 644 /bin/bash python3-bashate.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bashate python-bashate-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-bashate-doc/html/objects.inv python-bashate-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-bashate-doc/html/objects.inv 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 17 errors, 4 warnings.
> - Use: > > Source0: %{pypi_source} Changed > - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in > %install I changed the spec to have a %exclude in %files so tests can be done but part of the final rpm. Is this acceptable? If not, is there any example I can check? > - Remove the shebang: > > python3-bashate.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bashate/bashate.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Done
> > - Not sure you should provide bashate/tests Usually tests are remvoved in > > %install > > I changed the spec to have a %exclude in %files so tests can be done but > part of the final rpm. Is this acceptable? If not, is there any example I > can check? > Technically the %exclude macro is used to distribute files between subpackages. Deleting ir %enstall is preferred although I won't block that review on this technicality. Package approved.
FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428
FEDORA-2020-c4ca168428 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.