Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02888439-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02888439-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: salt-lint checks Salt State files (SLS) for best practices and behavior that could potentially be improved. Fedora Account System Username: rcallicotte This is my first package and I need a sponsor. I build internal rpms at my dayjob using a local instance of Koji. I have a completed scratch build available for viewing here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77170165
Updated Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-33-x86_64/02890097-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-33-x86_64/02890097-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.6.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Updated koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77238681 I updated the spec to conform to the current Python Packaging Guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/).
Hi Robby, I have a couple pointers. Please note that this is an unofficial review; I am also a new packager. > License: MIT There is a trailing space at the end of this line. > BuildRequires: gcc I don't think this is necessary. `BuildRequires: python3-devel` should be sufficient. > %prep > %autosetup > %generate_buildrequires > %pyproject_buildrequires -t I would add an empty line between `%autosetup` and `%generate_buildrequires` for readability purposes. > %files > [...] > %{python3_sitelib}/saltlint/ > %{python3_sitelib}/salt_lint-*.dist-info/ Instead of manually specifying these paths, you should add `%pyproject_save_files saltlint` under `%install`, delete those two paths, and then replace `%files` with `%files -f %{pyproject_files}`. See the Python Packaging Guidelines for more info. Also, it seems like building on Fedora Rawhide fails because of the broken `python3-flake8` package. You should file a bug for that package. ``` Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides (python3.10dist(pyflakes) < 2.5 with python3.10dist(pyflakes) >= 2.4) needed by python3-flake8-4.0.1-1.fc36.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) ``` Thanks, Maxwell
Updated SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02892702-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02892702-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Updated Koji Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=77313808 I added Maxwell's suggestions (Thanks!) and patched out dependencies related to linters and coverage. This is referenced in the Python Packaging Guideline (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters). According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Staying_Close_to_Upstream_Projects/, packagers should stay as close to upstream as possible. So I will reach out to upstream regarding the test dependencies.
Updated SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02916753-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec Updated SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-34-x86_64/02916753-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.7.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Updated Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78186423 I have submitted a PR upstream for manpage addition and it was merged and tagged today. The updated build reflects this.
(In reply to Robby Callicotte from comment #4) > Updated SPEC: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora- > 34-x86_64/02916753-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec > Updated SRPM: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora- > 34-x86_64/02916753-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.7.0-1.fc34.src.rpm > > Updated Koji scratch build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78186423 > > I have submitted a PR upstream for manpage addition and it was merged and > tagged today. The updated build reflects this. Nice! Hopefully, you will find a reviewer/sponsor soon. I am still waiting for a sponsor on my package. I guess the package reviewers are busy with the Fedora 35 release. Maxwell
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #5) > Nice! Hopefully, you will find a reviewer/sponsor soon. I am still waiting > for a sponsor on my package. I guess the package reviewers are busy with the > Fedora 35 release. Yeah I think everyone is beyond busy with the F35 release. Hopefully, someone will reach out soon. Updated Koji scratch build (rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78229395
Taking this review, and I can sponsor as well. It looks pretty good, just a few small corrections. [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://github.com/warpnet/salt-lint/releases/tag/v0.8.0 was tagged today, go ahead and update to that version. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Add a comment above patch0 that clarifies it's a downstream-only patch, perhaps with a link to the linter section of the Python guidelines that was mentioned in comment 3.
Hey Carl, Thanks for the review and for the sponsorship opportunity. Please see the updated info below. Updated Spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02944456-salt-lint/salt-lint.spec Updated SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/rcallicotte/salt-lint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02944456-salt-lint/salt-lint-0.8.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78636181 -Robby
Package approved, and I've sponsored you into the packager group. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/carl/packaging/reviews/salt-lint/2013796-salt- lint/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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [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. [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: salt-lint-0.8.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm salt-lint-0.8.0-1.fc36.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/salt-lint
Added salt-lint packages to fedora-updates system. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=salt-lint
You should edit the Bodhi update and add this bug's bug number (2013796) so it gets marked as CLOSED once the packages are pushed.
FEDORA-2021-1cf8ff2757 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1cf8ff2757
FEDORA-2021-1fc7a7bccc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1fc7a7bccc
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5ce06b5cef has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5ce06b5cef
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #12) > You should edit the Bodhi update and add this bug's bug number (2013796) so > it gets marked as CLOSED once the packages are pushed. Thanks for that tip Maxwell G. I somehow skipped over adding the bugzilla ticket to the update. :)
FEDORA-2021-1cf8ff2757 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1fc7a7bccc has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5ce06b5cef has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.