Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt-0.3.1-1.20210805git6934c32.fc35.src.rpm Description: Sort-friendly URI Reordering Transform (SURT) python package. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73310841
> # Created by pyp2rpm-3.3.7 I would drop this line. > %global forgeurl https://github.com/internetarchive/surt > %global commit 6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5 I understand why you are not using `Source0: %{pypi_source}` and using Source0 from github instead of PyPI, but pointing to commit is not ideal. If you are involved in the upstream project, can you please create a git tag for 0.3.1 version? Otherwise, I would recommend asking upstream via issue tracker or some other way of communication to create the tag for you. Only after being rejected or ignored, I would proceed with using commit instead of tag in the spec file. > %global common_description %{expand: > Sort-friendly URI Reordering Transform (SURT) python package.} Please do not duplicate the summary line here and rather elaborate a bit more. There is a nice usage example in the project README, I would add it to the package description for sure :-) > # Remove bundled egg-info > rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info I think you can safely drop this > # Remove unneeded shebang Good catch. Please consider creating an upstream issue or pull request and linking it here in the specfile, so we can eventually get rid of this workaround > BuildRequires: sed I cannot find the proper documentation right now, but I think this dependency can be dropped because it is in the minimal buildroot. Overall, I like the package, good job, Davide.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt-0.3.1-1.20210805git6934c32.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - reference upstream issue for missing tagged release - use upstream patch to remove unnecessary shebangs - convert to pyproject macros - expand description
Thank you for the update, I am learning a lot during this review. The forge-related macros are handy, especially the patch one. There is a small licensing mismatch GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later ----------------------------------------------- surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/DefaultIAURLCanonicalizer.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/GoogleURLCanonicalizer.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/IAURLCanonicalizer.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/URLRegexTransformer.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/__init__.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/handyurl.py surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt/surt.py GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3 -------------------------------------------- surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/LICENSE
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-surt/python-surt-0.3.1-1.20210805git6934c32.fc36.src.rpm Changelog: - update license to AGPLv3+
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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", "GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-surt/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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 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]: 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. [-]: 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: [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-surt-0.3.1-1.20211202git6934c32.fc36.noarch.rpm python-surt-0.3.1-1.20211202git6934c32.fc36.src.rpm python-surt.src:58: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog python-surt.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{forgeurl}/pull/27.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/internetarchive/surt/archive/6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5/surt-6934c321b3e2f66af9c001d882475949f00570c5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8c13a5aa4be03261cf54a66f7f219da94131dfb794dffc2f73331d3b8032ad3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c13a5aa4be03261cf54a66f7f219da94131dfb794dffc2f73331d3b8032ad3c Requires -------- python3-surt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(six) python3.10dist(tldextract) Provides -------- python3-surt: python-surt python3-surt python3.10-surt python3.10dist(surt) python3dist(surt)
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo python-surt 1990222 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39213
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-surt