Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-packaging.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-packaging-21.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: MinGW Python packaging core utils Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75989959
I will take this review. I don't need anything reviewed at the moment.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Shouldn't the file LICENSE (with no extension) also be listed in %license? It spells out the license situation for the entire project. - Neither binary package has any Requires, but packaging requires pyparsing. I admit that I know little of mingw packaging, but shouldn't there be a dependency on mingw64-/mingw32-python-pyparsing? ===== 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", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache License". 48 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/python3.10, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/python3.10/site-packages, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/python3.10, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/python3.10/site-packages, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32 I don't know what fedora-review is talking about here. All of these directories are owned by one of mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesystem, mingw32-python3, or mingw64-python3. [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. [!]: 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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I assume this is normal for mingw packages. [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: mingw32-python3-packaging-21.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mingw64-python3-packaging-21.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mingw-python-packaging-21.0-1.fc36.src.rpm mingw32-python3-packaging.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-python3-packaging.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-python3-packaging.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-packaging.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 mingw32-python3-packaging.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-python3-packaging.noarch: W: no-documentation ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/packaging/packaging-21.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7dc96269f53a4ccec5c0670940a4281106dd0bb343f47b7471f779df49c2fbe7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7dc96269f53a4ccec5c0670940a4281106dd0bb343f47b7471f779df49c2fbe7 Requires -------- mingw32-python3-packaging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-python3-packaging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- mingw32-python3-packaging: mingw32-python3-packaging mingw64-python3-packaging: mingw64-python3-packaging Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005806 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Ruby, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks, both taken care of: Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-packaging.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-packaging-21.0-2.fc36.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Sep 20 2021 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 21.0-2 - Also include LICENSE in %%license - Require: mingw-python-pyparsing
Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python-packaging
Thanks!