Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-sklearn-genetic.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-sklearn-genetic-0.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: sklearn-genetic is a genetic feature selection module for scikit-learn. Genetic algorithms mimic the process of natural selection to search for optimal values of a function. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
Package approved! A few notes and questions are in the full review, below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - You don’t have to do %license LICENSE.txt in the base package, since pyproject_files already has it in dist-info: $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-sklearn-genetic-0.5.1-1.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sklearn_genetic-0.5.1.dist-info/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/licenses/python3-sklearn-genetic/LICENSE.txt (This doesn’t always work, depending on the license file name, build system, and various upstream choices, so it’s best to verify if you’re going to rely on pyproject_files to handle the license file.) - Should COPYING.txt (not just LICENSE.txt) be added to license_files in [metadata] in setup.cfg? It looks like LICENSE.txt is LGPLv3 text, and COPYING.txt is the GPLv3 text that the LGPLv3 extends. - Should CITATION.cff be added as a %doc 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. [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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2073824-python-sklearn-genetic/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-sklearn-genetic [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. [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://github.com/manuel-calzolari/sklearn-genetic/archive/0.5.1/sklearn-genetic-0.5.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09b1a59e0df3861cfe7b7402a1486802d771d3334cbb47c88b0fd3b93757fce8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09b1a59e0df3861cfe7b7402a1486802d771d3334cbb47c88b0fd3b93757fce8 Requires -------- python3-sklearn-genetic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(deap) python3.10dist(multiprocess) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(scikit-learn) python-sklearn-genetic-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-sklearn-genetic: python-sklearn-genetic python3-sklearn-genetic python3.10-sklearn-genetic python3.10dist(sklearn-genetic) python3dist(sklearn-genetic) python-sklearn-genetic-doc: python-sklearn-genetic-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073824 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ 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: 3 python-sklearn-genetic-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Thank you for review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sklearn-genetic
FEDORA-2022-0e59695822 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0e59695822
FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf
FEDORA-2022-9e34c687d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9e34c687d1
FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0e59695822 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-2022-0e59695822 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0e59695822 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-9e34c687d1 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-2022-9e34c687d1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9e34c687d1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Iztok, Please remember to give the neuro-sig commit rights on the package if you want it to be listed with all the others and show up on our koschei dashboard etc. Please also remember to update the documentation if you haven't done that yet. Thanks all, Ankur
Thanks Ankur! The neuro-sig now has the commit rights. Docs will be updated by the end of the week.
FEDORA-2022-94f573cfaf has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-9e34c687d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0e59695822 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.