Spec URL: https://aviso.fedorapeople.org/isomer.spec SRPM URL: https://aviso.fedorapeople.org/isomer-0.8.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: ISOmer is a utility for creating ISO images based on an existing image or template. It allows you to "flavor" a source directory to create a custom ISO in a repeatable, efficient way. Fedora Account System Username: aviso
Updated files - Bumped to latest version - Added missing Requires Spec URL: https://aviso.fedorapeople.org/isomer.spec SRPM URL:https://aviso.fedorapeople.org/isomer-0.9.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Taking this review
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/a/2081057-isomer/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 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: [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. [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/Rockhopper-Technologies/isomer/archive/0.9.0/isomer-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a71721c1d97f662f60447b71e28da0582cf5ad1e109b16a633ea7838933e01d9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a71721c1d97f662f60447b71e28da0582cf5ad1e109b16a633ea7838933e01d9 Requires -------- isomer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 isomd5sum python(abi) xorriso Provides -------- isomer: isomer python3.11dist(isomer) python3dist(isomer) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2081057 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Not sure why fedora-review didn't pick them up, but there's a few rpmlint errors: isomer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isomer isomer.noarch: E: description-line-too-long ISOmer is a utility for creating ISO images based on an existing image or template. isomer.noarch: E: description-line-too-long It allows you to "flavor" a source directory to create a custom ISO in a repeatable, efficient way. The manpage isn't a blocker, but you should fix the description. Also consider using tox to run the tests (via %pyproject_buildrequires -t and %tox in %check).
There is also an issue with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_parity -- https://pypi.org/project/isomer/ is taken up by another project, and according to the policy the project either needs to be renamed, or you'd need to request a Packaging Committee exception for it to be included as-is.
Thanks for the review! I've updated the spec for the summary and description. I didn't get an error when I ran rpmlint locally. Curious what version of rpmlint you're running and if you have any options set. I have version 2.2.0. I don't think using tox is a good practice. It essentially adds an unnecessary dependency and abstraction and runs the same command. I can see an advantage where the test procedure is more complicated or prone to change, but, in this case, it's about as basic as it gets using unittest from the stdlib. I'll look into the pypi naming issue.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.