Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Autograd can automatically differentiate native Python and Numpy code. It can handle a large subset of Python's features, including loops, ifs, recursion and closures, and it can even take derivatives of derivatives of derivatives. Fedora Account System Username: hardeborlaa
I am a new packager and I need a sponsor.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - source package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file check with: rpm -ql -L -p results/python3-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm ===== 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]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vanessa/Desktop/contributions/reviews/2016779-python- autograd/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]: 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]: 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-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-autograd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-autograd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HIPS/autograd/archive/e12041cc230188342688fd7426e885fd7e7e9f48/python-autograd-e12041c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd Requires -------- python3-autograd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(future) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-autograd: python-autograd python3-autograd python3.10-autograd python3.10dist(autograd) python3dist(autograd) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016779 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks you for the review @vanessaigwe1 I have included the license text in its own file. Here is the updated Spec and SRPM: Spec URL- https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec SRPM URL- https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-1.fc34.src.rpm
Package Looks great 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]: 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/oluyosola/2016779-python- autograd/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. [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]: 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: [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. [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-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-autograd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HIPS/autograd/archive/e12041cc230188342688fd7426e885fd7e7e9f48/python-autograd-e12041c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd Requires -------- python3-autograd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(future) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-autograd: python-autograd python3-autograd python3.10-autograd python3.10dist(autograd) python3dist(autograd) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016779 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, fonts, PHP, R, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Adeleye Opeyemi from comment #3) > Thanks you for the review @vanessaigwe1 > > I have included the license text in its own file. Here is the updated Spec > and SRPM: > > Spec URL- https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec > > SRPM URL- > https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-1.fc34. > src.rpm This is an unofficial review. I am looking for a sponsor This looks good :) 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vanessa/Desktop/contributions/reviews/2016779-python- autograd/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. [x]: 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-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-autograd-1.3-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-autograd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-autograd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) numpy -> bumpy, lumpy, dumpy The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-autograd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backpropagation -> back propagation, back-propagation, propagation The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HIPS/autograd/archive/e12041cc230188342688fd7426e885fd7e7e9f48/python-autograd-e12041c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd Requires -------- python3-autograd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(future) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-autograd: python-autograd python3-autograd python3.10-autograd python3.10dist(autograd) python3dist(autograd) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016779 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, R, Haskell, Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for your reviews, they're very helpful! I'm looking at this now. A few starting points: - Please remove the quotes (") around the Summary - Some of your lines have extra spaces at the end (we call them trailing spaces). Can you remove these please? - i think it's best to use the rpmautospec macros now. So: * please replace "Release: 1%{?dist}" with "Release: %autorelease" * please remove all the changelog entries and use "%autochangelog". So it'll become: %changelog %autochangelog Please make these changes and upload the new spec and srpm and I'll do the full review. Cheers, Ankur
Thanks @FranciscoD. I have made all the changes listed above. Here is the updated spec and srpm: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-2.fc36.src.rpm
How was this spec generated? I see them rpmautospec bits on top that I don't think should be there (they don't get added to my specs when I use autorelease etc.). So, is this the spec you wrote or is this the spec generated by `mockbuild` or something? Also, the spec file linked here does not match the spec file in the src.rpm here. So maybe remove all the rpms from your folder, remove the `## start ...` bits from your spec and re-run `mockbuild` to get a fresh src.rpm that matches your latest spec.
Here is what fedora-review catches: Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2016779-python-autograd/srpm/python-autograd.spec 2021-11-05 08:34:04.747232179 +0000 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2016779-python-autograd/srpm-unpacked/python-autograd.spec 2021-11-05 06:21:22.000000000 +0000 @@ -2,4 +2,13 @@ ## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) %define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 5; + 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 + +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: release_number = 2; base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); @@ -71,3 +80,16 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 05 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-5 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Tue Oct 26 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-4 +- license text included in its file + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-3 +- Add Spec and Srcrpm for Review + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-2 +- Add spec and tar file for Review + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-1 +- Add Spec and tar file See how the time stamps for the two specs are different (right on top at the end of the line), so I don't think this src rpm is from your latest spec file.
Thanks @FranciscoD. I have made all necessary changes and re-run mockbuild. Here is the updated spec and SRPM: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-6.fc36.src.rpm
Updated files: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-8.fc36.src.rpm
Looks very very good! Only one or two tweaks and it'll be approved: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ^ using rpmautospec, so this is a false negative. - Please add a comment at the top to document why we're using a git commit instead of a tag or release - I see there are examples in the tar, so we should include them if possible. It'll require you to include a `-doc` subpackage, though because they're > 2MB in size: $ du -sch examples/ 2.8M examples/ 2.8M total ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 127 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2016779-python- autograd/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. [x]: 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. ^ $ rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./python3-autograd-1.3-8.fc36.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/python3-autograd/license.txt [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. [ ]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. ^ Not checked. [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: [!]: 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) ^ This is because we're using rpmautospec, so it's a false comment. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: All OK, run manually: $ rpmlint *.rpm ======================================================== 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 python-autograd.src: W: strange-permission python-autograd.spec 600 python-autograd.spec:82: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease python-autograd.spec:82: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog ========================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ========================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/HIPS/autograd/archive/e12041cc230188342688fd7426e885fd7e7e9f48/python-autograd-e12041c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e06c6717212c3425bbf0b08c7dabc49360eccb5270a17e2b9e3e90171fa529cd Requires -------- python3-autograd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(future) python3.10dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-autograd: python-autograd python3-autograd python3.10-autograd python3.10dist(autograd) python3dist(autograd) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2016779-python-autograd/srpm/python-autograd.spec 2021-12-06 08:29:02.028865129 +0000 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2016779-python-autograd/srpm-unpacked/python-autograd.spec 2021-11-05 10:38:38.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 8; + 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 commit e12041cc230188342688fd7426e885fd7e7e9f48 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) @@ -61,3 +70,25 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Fri Nov 05 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 1.3-8 +- feat: reformat description + +* Fri Nov 05 2021 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> 1.3-7 +- chore: clean up old files + +* Fri Nov 05 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-6 +- spec and srpm updated + +* Fri Nov 05 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-5 +- %autorelease and %autochangelog changes + +* Tue Oct 26 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-4 +- license text included in its file + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-3 +- Add Spec and Srcrpm for Review + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-2 +- Add spec and tar file for Review + +* Sat Oct 23 2021 hardeborlaa <adebola786> 1.3-1 +- Add Spec and tar file Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016779 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Haskell, R, Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks, @FranciscoD for the review. Here is the updated Spec and Srpm Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec Srpm URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-8.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks for that, sorry, it fell off my radar. I'll complete the review again today and provide an update.
Looks very good. We do need to split the examples out into a different -doc sub-package. Take a look at this spec, for example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyelectro/blob/rawhide/f/python-pyelectro.spec#_28 You just need to declare a new doc sub-package, and add a new files section for it which contains the examples. Do ping me in the channels if you have any queries about what to do here. Cheers,
Thanks for the review. I will make the necessary changes and provide an update.
Spec URl: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec Srpm URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-11.fc36.src.rpm
Spec URl: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd.spec Srpm URL: https://pagure.io/python-autograd/raw/master/f/python-autograd-1.3-12.fc36.src.rpm
OK, that looks good now! 👏 XXX APPROVED XXX Please continue from step 7 here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_Existing_Contributors/ When the repo is ready on src.fedoraproject.org, you'll have to use the steps here to import the package again: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/issue/56 Please ping us anytime if you have any questions about this.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-autograd
FEDORA-2022-ec2a944a1b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ec2a944a1b
FEDORA-2022-9a30710b7e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a30710b7e
FEDORA-2022-9a30710b7e 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-2022-9a30710b7e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a30710b7e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ec2a944a1b 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-2022-ec2a944a1b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ec2a944a1b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ec2a944a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-9a30710b7e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.