Spec URL: https://ekohl.nl/git-up.spec SRPM URL: https://ekohl.nl/git-up-2.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: A review of git-up, which was previously orphaned for a lack of time. This was >= 8 weeks ago. It takes the spec file from my COPR (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ekohl/git-up) and merges it with the orphaned package (changelog, add LICENSE). To the best of my ability I think this passes fedora-review. Fedora Account System Username: ekohl
> Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/msiemens/PyGitUp/master/LICENCE This link points to the "master" branch as of the latest commit, so the contents of the file may change over time. I think it'd be better to use a "constant" link that points to the specific git tag: > Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/msiemens/PyGitUp/v%{version}/LICENCE
Looks I missed your review even though it was very fast, which I really appreciate. The LICENSE part was actually copied from the orphaned package beacuse it wasn't present at all in my COPR. However, you're completely right. I've updated the spec and SRPM files at the original URL with your exact suggestion.
The package looks in good shape, so I'm giving it a 'review (+)'. I have two minor nits, which I consider optional: - The `%description` text should end with a full stop (.), not with an ellipsis (...). - The package ships the `tests` subdirectory, which seems unnecessary - the tests are only needed at build time. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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/git-up See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/erhardt/Projects/fedora/2082032-git- up/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 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 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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://raw.githubusercontent.com/msiemens/PyGitUp/v2.1.0/LICENCE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e3412e2586f40f64ee5ecef19a74657de85bd08727a0e550b72cac411270847 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e3412e2586f40f64ee5ecef19a74657de85bd08727a0e550b72cac411270847 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/git-up/git-up-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6e677d91aeb4de37e62bdc166042243313ec873c3caf9938911ac2e7f52a0652 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6e677d91aeb4de37e62bdc166042243313ec873c3caf9938911ac2e7f52a0652 Requires -------- git-up (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(colorama) < 0.5~~ with python3.10dist(colorama) >= 0.4) (python3.10dist(gitpython) < 4~~ with python3.10dist(gitpython) >= 3) (python3.10dist(termcolor) < 2~~ with python3.10dist(termcolor) >= 1.1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- git-up: git-up python3.10dist(git-up) python3dist(git-up) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2082032 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Haskell, Java, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Christoph Erhardt from comment #3) > The package looks in good shape, so I'm giving it a 'review (+)'. Thanks, I appreciate that. I'll address your comments in the final push. > I have two minor nits, which I consider optional: > - The `%description` text should end with a full stop (.), not with an > ellipsis > (...). Will do. > - The package ships the `tests` subdirectory, which seems unnecessary - the > tests are only needed at build time. I agree with you here. They are included via the %pyproject_save_files macro, but I couldn't find an easy way to have it exclude the tests module so the only thing I can come up with is to add %exclude %{python3_sitelib}/PyGitUp/tests to the %files section. That does work.
Package is now in repositories, closing review.