Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/niaarm/python-niaarm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/niaarm/python-niaarm-0.1.5-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: NiaARM is a framework for Association Rule Mining based on nature-inspired algorithms for optimization. The framework is written fully in Python and runs on all platforms. NiaARM allows users to preprocess the data in a transaction database automatically, to search for association rules and provide a pretty output of the rules found. This framework also supports numerical and real-valued types of attributes besides the categorical ones. Mining the association rules is defined as an optimization problem, and solved using the nature-inspired algorithms that come from the related framework called NiaPy. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - I can’t find anything licensed CC-BY-SA in the package. If (MIT and CC-BY-SA) is really the correct License, you need to to add a licensing breakdown comment as in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. - Version 0.1.6 is available; please update. - You can remove BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinxcontrib-bibtex} and instead change %pyproject_buildrequires -r to (noting that you could leave “-r”, but I have dropped it because it is now the default): %pyproject_buildrequires %{?with_doc_pdf:-x docs} ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - If you do want to package the tests, would you consider putting them in a separate subpackage with a fully-versioned dependency on the base package? %files -n python3-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files} […] %exclude %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}/tests %files -n python3-%{pypi_name}-tests %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}/tests - A man page is always desired for a command-line tool. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages ===== 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. [!]: 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". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2073825-python-niaarm/licensecheck.txt What is CC-BY-SA licensed? See Issues. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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-niaarm [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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/firefly-cpp/NiaARM/archive/0.1.5/NiaARM-0.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3a7bf11bb282d943ad4afbcf83626f22442aac99247be84c82d9e724853a3d41 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3a7bf11bb282d943ad4afbcf83626f22442aac99247be84c82d9e724853a3d41 Requires -------- python3-niaarm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(niapy) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(pandas) python-niaarm-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-niaarm: python-niaarm python3-niaarm python3.10-niaarm python3.10dist(niaarm) python3dist(niaarm) python-niaarm-doc: python-niaarm-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell 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 python3-niaarm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary niaarm python-niaarm-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Thank you very much for your review. I am responding with my answers to your comments. Both files were also updated according to your requirements. ALL ISSUES:: Comment: - I can’t find anything licensed CC-BY-SA in the package. If (MIT and CC-BY-SA) is really the correct License, you need to to add a licensing breakdown comment as in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios. ANSWER: Yes. You are right; only the MIT license should be written down. Comment: Version 0.1.6 is available; please update. ANSWER: Done Comment: - You can remove BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinxcontrib-bibtex} and instead change %pyproject_buildrequires -r to (noting that you could leave “-r”, but I have dropped it because it is now the default): %pyproject_buildrequires %{?with_doc_pdf:-x docs} ANSWER: Done Optional issues: - Tests: I will do it later when the package is imported. - Man pages: I will ask you to provide a man page. However, the package is now under heavy development, and major changes are expected. Hence, we may wait for one more month.
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/niaarm/python-niaarm.spec SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/niaarm/python-niaarm-0.1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm
Thanks! Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - Consider putting the tests in a separate subpackage with a fully-versioned dependency on the base package. - A man page is always desired for a command-line tool. ===== 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". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2073825-python-niaarm/2073825-python- niaarm/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 20480 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-niaarm [?]: 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/firefly-cpp/NiaARM/archive/0.1.6/NiaARM-0.1.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24de81a5c8eea6bf82bc9e83baa7b0da01c83d4bbbd5508abd1e817a355ae8bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24de81a5c8eea6bf82bc9e83baa7b0da01c83d4bbbd5508abd1e817a355ae8bd Requires -------- python3-niaarm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(niapy) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(pandas) python-niaarm-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-niaarm: python-niaarm python3-niaarm python3.10-niaarm python3.10dist(niaarm) python3dist(niaarm) python-niaarm-doc: python-niaarm-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2073825 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Java, fonts 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 python3-niaarm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary niaarm python-niaarm-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-niaarm
FEDORA-2022-ba77089d01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ba77089d01
FEDORA-2022-fb54710903 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fb54710903
FEDORA-2022-ba77089d01 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-ba77089d01 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ba77089d01 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fb54710903 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-fb54710903 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fb54710903 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fb54710903 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ba77089d01 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.