Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/python-cffsubr.spec SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/python-cffsubr-0.2.7-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Standalone CFF subroutinizer based on the AFDKO tx tool Fedora Account System Username: rajeeshknambiar
Not a full review, but some comments at first glance: ----- You should attempt to unbundle afdko, which is already in Fedora as adobe-afdko. Otherwise, you must handle it as specified in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. I think you can do this by patching out the “tx = Executable(…)” section in setup.py, and just symlinking /usr/bin/tx in the right place. At this point the package could even become noarch, as the bundled executable is the only compiled code. ----- You should not be adding %global debug_package %{nil} without a good reason. It should be possible to build this with proper debuginfo. ----- The package fails to build in mock because it is looking for setuptools-git-ls-files. I have submitted this for review, and you could review it to get it quickly added to Fedora (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909400), but there may be further patching and workarounds required. After all, the purpose is to use git metadata, which is not in the release tarball, so having the dependency packaged might not help at all. ----- The %python_provide macro is obsolete and should not be used in Fedora. If you are targeting Fedora 32, you can use %py_provides, otherwise nothing is needed. (I like to wrap %py_provides in %if 0%{?fedora} == 32 / %endif as a reminder it should be removed after Fedora 32 EOL.) See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro. ----- %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/*.py %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/__pycache__ %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/tx would be more conventionally and, I think, better written as %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname} %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info ----- It is helpful to run the fedora-review tool on your own RPM to flush out any problems. ----- I have my own reasons for wanting this in Fedora, so I’m willing to help out quite a bit getting the spec file improved.
Created attachment 1760011 [details] Sample spec file implementing early feedback Please see the attached sample spec file. It should cover my feedback, including unbundling adobe-afdko. If you like it, please feel free to modify it to your liking and use it in an updated submission. Note that Fedora 32 cannot be supported because its python3-fonttools is too old.
Many thanks for your review and for providing updated spec. I shall help with reviewing setuptools-git-ls-files. Unfortunately, my main laptop is under repair; it would be another week or so before I could get back to these.
Given I was able to patch the setuptools-git-ls-files BR out of this package, I may drop the review request for it. I don’t think it’s used for anything other than cffsubr, and I originally submitted it intending to package cffusbr in the future. I’m going ahead and claiming this review; I’ll await your updated submission. Thanks!
Thanks for your help. Update spec and srpm are available at: Spec URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/spec/python-cffsubr.spec SRPM URL: https://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/srpm/python-cffsubr-0.2.8-2.fc33.src.rpm
Thanks for packaging this! Approved, but please note the comment in Issues, below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - In the source RPM, the spec file has permissions 0400 (read-only, and only by the owner). This may, or may not, cause problems when trying to import into dist-git or build the package, but it is odd and surprising. I am not blocking the package review on this, but please do change it (chmod 0644 python-cffsubr.spec). ===== 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1928694-python- cffsubr/20210314/1928694-python-cffsubr/licensecheck.txt Note files with OFL are not installed, only used for testing; therefore they are correctly not in the License field. [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. [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: [-]: 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. [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: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-cffsubr-0.2.8-2.fc35.noarch.rpm python-cffsubr-0.2.8-2.fc35.src.rpm python3-cffsubr.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize python3-cffsubr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize python-cffsubr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize python-cffsubr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tx -> TX, t, x python-cffsubr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize python-cffsubr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tx -> TX, t, x python-cffsubr.src: W: strange-permission python-cffsubr.spec 400 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-cffsubr.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize python3-cffsubr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subroutinizer -> subroutine, routinize 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/cffsubr/cffsubr-0.2.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e24bd03c94944e1536ec8437ab83fb4ac38477412426c1ffd4e056dd16cde235 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e24bd03c94944e1536ec8437ab83fb4ac38477412426c1ffd4e056dd16cde235 Requires -------- python3-cffsubr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/tx python(abi) python3.9dist(fonttools) Provides -------- python3-cffsubr: python-cffsubr python3-cffsubr python3.9-cffsubr python3.9dist(cffsubr) python3dist(cffsubr) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1928694 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, C/C++, Java, Ruby, fonts, R, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cffsubr
FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec
spec file permission fixed in SRPM import and built for Rawhide, F34 & F33. F32 build failed, shall investigate.
From a mock-build on F32: > No matching package to install: 'python3dist(fonttools) >= 4.10.2' Given that, I would just skip F32.
FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f70c6130ec has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-090ded929a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-090ded929a
FEDORA-2021-090ded929a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-090ded929a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-090ded929a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-090ded929a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.