Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxemoji/python-sphinxemoji.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxemoji/python-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: An extension to use emoji codes in your Sphinx documentation. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
*** Bug 2010052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Looks great, not sure how to check if upstream publishes signatures pertinent for gpgverify, but all the "MUST" tests pass for sure. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== 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. [-]: 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/shaneallcroft/software_source/fedora/reviews/2010053-python- sphinxemoji/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 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: [-]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. (Shane: is the spec file's reference to pypi a query to upstream, I'm inclined to think yes) [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. [?]: 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]: 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-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinxemoji/sphinxemoji-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b Requires -------- python3-sphinxemoji (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxemoji: python-sphinxemoji python3-sphinxemoji python3.10-sphinxemoji python3.10dist(sphinxemoji) python3dist(sphinxemoji) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2010053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, R, PHP, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vanessa/Desktop/contributions/reviews/2010053-python- sphinxemoji/licensecheck.txt [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 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. [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. [-]: 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-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- srpm-unpacked/python-sphinxemoji.spec:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-sphinxemoji.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinxemoji/sphinxemoji-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b Requires -------- python3-sphinxemoji (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxemoji: python-sphinxemoji python3-sphinxemoji python3.10-sphinxemoji python3.10dist(sphinxemoji) python3dist(sphinxemoji) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2010053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Perl, R, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Note – This is an unofficial review. I am looking for a sponsor Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: 1) When I ran the rpmlint test, these were the results I got (I excluded the spelling errors and the invalid URL, because it worked manually) python-sphinxemoji.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm/python-sphinxemoji.spec:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm-unpacked/python-sphinxemoji.spec:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 2) I checked the spec file and observed that it has no recorded change log but an %autochangelog, is that acceptable? 3) The spec file lists BSD as its license and this is what is contained in the license check Unknown or generated -------------------- sphinxemoji-0.1.9/PKG-INFO sphinxemoji-0.1.9/README.rst sphinxemoji-0.1.9/setup.cfg sphinxemoji-0.1.9/setup.py sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji.egg-info/PKG-INFO sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji.egg-info/SOURCES.txt sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji.egg-info/dependency_links.txt sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji.egg-info/requires.txt sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji.egg-info/top_level.txt sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/__init__.py sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/codes.json sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/sphinxemoji.py sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/twemoji.css sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/twemoji.js sphinxemoji-0.1.9/sphinxemoji/utils.py 4) I searched for the latest version of the Sphinx emoji and saw a v1 but for an android, so not sure it applies here 5) Dist tag is present. ===== 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. [?]: 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hafsat/Documents/outreachy/neuroFedora/reviews/2010053-python- sphinxemoji/licensecheck.txt [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [?]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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 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 [?]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [-]: 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-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-sphinxemoji-0.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src:43: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinxemoji/sphinxemoji-0.1.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : faf788e5b33a4e309b721b9fa1dba4f12fec74193e5aa30040f9d4d36736444b Requires -------- python3-sphinxemoji (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxemoji: python-sphinxemoji python3-sphinxemoji python3.10-sphinxemoji python3.10dist(sphinxemoji) python3dist(sphinxemoji) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2010053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, Ocaml, R, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
This is an unofficial review and I need a sponsor. I checked the PyPI URL, the updated version is v0.2.0 and was released on the 6th of October, so I think this needs to be updated?
Thanks for your reviews. - you can ignore the "dist tag" warning---our checks don't know about `%autorelease` yet. - you can ignore the changelog warning---our checks don't know about `%autochangelog` yet. Changes to the spec: - updated to use the 0.2.0 release - the developers don't include the LICENSE file in the pypi tar.gz, so I'm using the copy they have on the GitHub repository instead. This is now included in the rpm: $ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p results_python-sphinxemoji/0.2.0/1.fc36/python3-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinxemoji-0.2.0.dist-info/LICENSE New spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxemoji/python-sphinxemoji.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxemoji/python-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Please feel free to do another round of reviews to verify if there's anything else that needs fixing. Shane, could you also complete your review and see if this is ready for approval please? Thanks, Ankur
Also filed this asking the devs to include the License file in the pypi tar.gz: https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/emojicodes/issues/38
(completed review on the updated files) *See Issues -- tldr looks great, probably ready for approval Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file at URL differs from the spec file in the srpm. ^^^^^ I have a feeling this is probably a non-issue, since this check falls into the "EXTRA items" category rather than the MUST or SHOULD. If this is in fact not an issue, this packaging is ready for approval :+1: Otherwise, this should be addressed, and then I'll re-review. The diff can be inspected down near the bottom of this review. ===== 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. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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. 'python-sphinxemoji.src: W: strange-permission python-sphinxemoji.spec 600' ^^^^^ This is the most concerning line of the rpmlint feedback, and a permission of 600 is likely not harmful in the context of the spec file, so I don't think this is an issue: [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: [-]: 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. [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. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-sphinxemoji-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python3-sphinxemoji.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emoji -> emotive python-sphinxemoji.src: W: strange-permission python-sphinxemoji.spec 600 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/shaneallcroft/software_source/fedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm/python-sphinxemoji.spec 2021-11-05 08:26:26.110032017 -0400 +++ /home/shaneallcroft/software_source/fedora/reviews/2010053-python-sphinxemoji/srpm-unpacked/python-sphinxemoji.spec 2021-11-05 03:10:43.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global _description %{expand: An extension to use emoji codes in your Sphinx documentation.} @@ -45,3 +54,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 05 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 0.2.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Sun Oct 03 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 0.1.9-1 +- feat: init Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2010053 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Java, R, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks Shane! The issue noted here is because of the rpmautospec macros. When we use `mockbuild` etc., the macros get expanded in the spec that is included in the SRPM. I've opened a discussion here about this: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6MYZCTNGK25SVGZLKEPGGDXZMGXK56DH/ There are some suggestions in the thread on what to do during the package import too. To approve the package, please: - set the fedora-review flag to + - set the status to POST Thanks again, Ankur
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinxemoji
FEDORA-2021-7958fc75b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7958fc75b1
FEDORA-2021-7958fc75b1 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-2021-7958fc75b1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7958fc75b1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7e13b909ee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7e13b909ee \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7e13b909ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-7e13b909ee has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-7958fc75b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.