Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/RedHatOfficial/ksc/master/ksc.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/RedHatOfficial/ksc/blob/master/ksc-1.7-1.gitf3d3ad2.fc32.src.rpm?raw=true Description: ksc is a python tool for out-of-tree kernel modules, in particular symbol checksums and bugzilla reporting Fedora Account System Username: ckalina
Taking this review.
Hello, has there been any development on the package review, please? Can I help in any way? Thanks!
Your SRPM URL is invalid and causes fedora-review to choke. Please fix it.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > Your SRPM URL is invalid and causes fedora-review to choke. Please fix it. It appears that fedora-review ignores the get params: INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1912914 INFO: --> SRPM url: https://github.com/RedHatOfficial/ksc/blob/master/ksc-1.7-1.gitf3d3ad2.fc32.src.rpm I am not sure whether fedora-review will pickup on a new SRPM URL line, but I digress; SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~ckalina/fed-ksc-review/ksc-1.7-1.gitf3d3ad2.fc32.src.rpm If it doesn't, could you please download it manually and run fedora-review -n ksc instead of -b BUGID, please?
> %doc README COPYING PKG-INFO Please fix this so the license file is separately marked, like so: > %license COPYING > %doc README PKG-INFO Cf. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #5) > > %doc README COPYING PKG-INFO > > Please fix this so the license file is separately marked, like so: > > > %license COPYING > > %doc README PKG-INFO > Fixed in-place (same srpm and spec url).
Hello, has there been any development on the package review, please? Can I help in any way? Thanks! There seem to be no outstanding issues, going through fedora-review. 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 [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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Cannot unpack rpms (using --prebuilt?) [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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. ===== 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). [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. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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.
This package doesn't comply with the Python packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Some things I see that's wrong with it: * Dependency generators are disabled, which is not something we generally permit. * The usage of %__python is not permitted * This should use the %py3_build and %py3_install macros instead of calling setup.py manually * URL does not point to the project home page
Thank you for the reply. (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > This package doesn't comply with the Python packaging guidelines: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > Some things I see that's wrong with it: > > * Dependency generators are disabled, which is not something we generally > permit. The guideline states "Packages MAY use the automatic Python dependency generator." and "This generator is enabled by default in Fedora. If a packager wishes to explicitly opt out of the generator because the upstream metadata are not applicable, a packager SHOULD opt out explicitly by adding: %{?python_disable_dependency_generator}" This macro is not present in the spec file. Added egg-info. Using py3_dist. > * The usage of %__python is not permitted Removed. > * This should use the %py3_build and %py3_install macros instead of calling > setup.py manually Changed. > * URL does not point to the project home page Changed to point to github page of the project. Do you figure there's anything missing? Thanks!
> %py3_install -- -O1 --root %{buildroot} "%py3_install" does --skip-build and already passes --root %{buildroot}, so we don't need those extra options. (The correct build options are done in "%py3_build" already)
> Requires: %{py3_dist requests} Your setup.py has "install_requires=['requests']", so this is not needed, as the dependency will be autogenerated. If you're building for RHEL 8 (outside of EPEL), you can also have it turned on in your spec file by adding a line to the spec with the following: "%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}"
Changed the py3install and removed the extra requires. Do you figure there's anything else? Thanks!
> %py3_install -- -O1 This should just be "%py3_install".
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13) > > %py3_install -- -O1 > > This should just be "%py3_install". Changed.
Everything looks good to me now. PACKAGE APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ksc
Package is available in repositories, closing.