Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-gravatar.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-gravatar-0.5.0-13.fc36.src.rpm Description: Small extension for Flask to make usage of Gravatar service easy Fedora Account System Username: smani
Package is APPROVED. Please see “Notes” for recommendations, and proceed with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-gravatar See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names OK: review request is for unretirement ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - URL would be better changed to HTTPS - Better than %py3_check_import flask_gravatar would be %pyproject_check_import since you don’t have to specify the package(s) to import, and it automatically makes sure any subpackages/modules are test-imported too (e.g., flask_gravatar.version). ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2033804-python-flask-gravatar/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 4 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 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). [?]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/F/Flask-Gravatar/Flask-Gravatar-0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60665f31c2c612891db68ff801e93ed3a0881c6c8ec346abc64d2a9923f562e1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60665f31c2c612891db68ff801e93ed3a0881c6c8ec346abc64d2a9923f562e1 Requires -------- python-flask-gravatar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(flask) Provides -------- python-flask-gravatar: python-flask-gravatar python3.10dist(flask-gravatar) python3dist(flask-gravatar) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2033804 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, R, fonts, Java, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ 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 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Thanks! I'll apply the suggested changes. Unretirement requested in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10449.
If you have a chance to swap reviews (at your leisure), please consider picking one of these: Pure Python: python-colorcet: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022153 python-probeinterface: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012917 python-pynamodb: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033924 python.testing.common.database: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033828 python-vecrec: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2023407 Python with Cython or pybind11: python-cyipopt: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020886 python-geomdl: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016661 python-mapbox-earcut: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018705 C++: casc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2027121 ---- Meanwhile, I’ll take a look at your other Flask-related review requests as soon as I have a chance.
Is there a reason that you're not running the tests that upstream provides? You should do so if it's possible and practical.
@gotmax Fixed Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-gravatar.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-gravatar-0.5.0-14.fc36.src.rpm
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #4) > Is there a reason that you're not running the tests that upstream provides? > You should do so if it's possible and practical. Thanks for noticing this. I’m not sure why I failed to to observe that tests were available in the original review. The updated submission looks fine, although I have a couple of suggestions: - It’s acceptable but not really necessary to run %pyproject_check_import now that you are running the upstream tests. The “import smoke test” is really intended for cases where upstream tests don’t exist or can’t be executed in the RPM build environment for one reason or another. - It would be best to patch out other linting and coverage tools from pytest.ini and setup.py, too: remove “--cov=flask_gravatar --cov-report=term-missing” and the dependencies on check-manifest, coverage, isort, pydocstyle, and pytest-cov (plus pytest-pep8 which you are already removing). See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters.
Suggestions addressed in imported package, thanks for the review!