Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-panels.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-panels-0.6.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A sphinx extension for creating document components optimised for HTML+CSS. - The panels directive creates panels of content in a grid layout, utilising both the Bootstrap 4 grid system, and cards layout. - The link-button directive creates a click-able button, linking to a URL or reference, and can also be used to make an entire panel click-able. - The dropdown directive creates toggle-able content. - The tabbed directive creates tabbed content. - opticon and fa (fontawesome) roles allow for inline icons to be added. Fedora Account System Username: qulogic
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80652355
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/python3-sphinx- panels/LICENSE See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files The issue is that both files listed in %license are named LICENSE. Note that both files also appear elsewhere: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx_panels-0.6.0.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx_panels/data/LICENSE - Ah, good old American English. The %description uses British English spellings (optimised, utilising) instead of American English spellings (optimized, utilizing). - Since upstream did not provide any tests, please consider adding a %check script that invokes %pyproject_check_import. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_check_import ===== 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". 26 files have unknown 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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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. [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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream did not provide any tests. [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 ------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 2 ================= 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 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: 32, packages: 1 ================= 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ================= Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx-panels/sphinx-panels-0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d36dcd26358117e11888f7143db4ac2301ebe90873ac00627bf1fe526bf0f058 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d36dcd26358117e11888f7143db4ac2301ebe90873ac00627bf1fe526bf0f058 Requires -------- python3-sphinx-panels (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(sphinx) < 5~~ with python3.10dist(sphinx) >= 2) python(abi) python3.10dist(docutils) Provides -------- python3-sphinx-panels: python-sphinx-panels python3-sphinx-panels python3.10-sphinx-panels python3.10dist(sphinx-panels) python3dist(sphinx-panels) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2036291 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Ruby, R, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3) > Issues: > ======= > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/licenses/python3-sphinx- > panels/LICENSE > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_duplicate_files > > The issue is that both files listed in %license are named LICENSE. Note > that > both files also appear elsewhere: > /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx_panels-0.6.0.dist-info/LICENSE > /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx_panels/data/LICENSE > I removed the dist-info/ one, because %pyproject_save_files automatically tags it as %license. I've had to leave the data/ one in, though, which still gets a warning due to it being in the macro. > - Ah, good old American English. The %description uses British English > spellings (optimised, utilising) instead of American English spellings > (optimized, utilizing). > Fixed. > - Since upstream did not provide any tests, please consider adding a %check > script that invokes %pyproject_check_import. See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #pyproject_check_import Added. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-panels.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-panels-0.6.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review, Jerry https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/41324
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-panels
FEDORA-2022-b14eb7c80b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b14eb7c80b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b14eb7c80b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2e3dcf8f0a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2e3dcf8f0a
FEDORA-2022-b14eb7c80b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-2e3dcf8f0a has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.