Spec URL: https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator.spec SRPM URL: https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: A pure python RFC3986 validator Fedora Account System Username: chedi
> %global common_description %{expand: > A pure python RFC3986 validator > } This should end with a period. > %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}-%{version}.dist-info > %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py > %pycached %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py Why are you manually specifying the directories like this while using %pyproject_save_files? Unless this is one of the few cases where it doesn't work properly, you should replace `%files -n python3-%{srcname}` with `%files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files}`. You should run unit tests in %check if possible. If that isn't practical, at least run `%pyproject_check_import` You should install the README with %doc. Suggestions ---- Conventionally, the specfile directives should be aligned to 16 characters (e.g. `Name: %{pkgname}` instead of `Name: %{pkgname}`. Source0 can be shortened to Source if you'd like. RPM has supported automatic source file numbering since 4.15.x.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/rfc3986_validator.py See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files > %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py and > %pycached %{python3_sitelib}/%{slugname}.py are redundant. Just keep the %pycached line. This will also be fixed by using %pyproject_files. Ctrl+F for NOTE to see my interspersed comments. ===== 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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python- rfc3986-validator/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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines NOTE: %check is missing, which is required by the Python Packaging guidelines, amongst other issues. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python NOTE: No %check. [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. NOTE: noarch package [!]: %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: [-]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). NOTE: rpmautospec is used, which causes these differences. See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- python-rfc3986-validator.src: W: strange-permission python-rfc3986-validator.spec 600 python3-rfc3986-validator.noarch: W: no-documentation Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/naimetti/rfc3986-validator/archive/v0.1.0/rfc3986-validator-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8f325d99c3aafaadfdbb3082145fa04a116dde5e39dc1eb2b24a25aa87307bef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8f325d99c3aafaadfdbb3082145fa04a116dde5e39dc1eb2b24a25aa87307bef Requires -------- python3-rfc3986-validator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-rfc3986-validator: python-rfc3986-validator python3-rfc3986-validator python3.11-rfc3986-validator python3.11dist(rfc3986-validator) python3dist(rfc3986-validator) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python-rfc3986-validator/srpm/python-rfc3986-validator.spec 2022-07-11 20:01:02.544266380 -0500 +++ /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2106171-python-rfc3986-validator/srpm-unpacked/python-rfc3986-validator.spec 2022-07-11 17:26:47.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname rfc3986-validator %global slugname rfc3986_validator @@ -50,3 +59,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Mon Jul 11 2022 chedi toueiti <chedi.toueiti> 0.1.0-1 +- initial commit Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2106171 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Java, C/C++, fonts, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
@maxwell thanks for taking the time to review this package, I didn't add checks because the tests are using another package (rfc3987) not present yet in fedora. the new version with the necessary correction (same links) https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator.spec https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Sure, no problem! (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #1) > > %global common_description %{expand: > > A pure python RFC3986 validator > > } > > This should end with a period. Don't forget to fix this. > %global srcname rfc3986-validator > %global slugname rfc3986_validator > %global pkgname python-rfc3986-validator (I thought I brought this up in the first comment, but it looks like I forgot to....) I'm really not a fan of all of those *name macros. It makes the specfile harder to read than just using the appropriate name in the appropriate place. It feels a bit silly to define %slugname and %pkgname which are only used once. %srcname is used multiple times, but I still think it's cleaner in this case to just use actual name. However, that's not an actual guideline, as far as I know, so it's really up to you. > I didn't add checks because the tests are using another package (rfc3987) not present yet in fedora. rfc3987 appears to be present in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-rfc3987/python3-rfc3987/ Please also see the comments in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a002237477#comment-26035445 about removing pytest-runner. It's deprecated upstream, and we would like to avoid having any more packages depend on this. If you're not comfortable patching this out, I would appreciate if you at least created an issue upstream.
here is the last update with the following changes: - added the period to the common_description - added a patch removing the pytest-runner from the setup.py (I'll try to escalate the issue upstream) - I was fooled by the error message into thinking rfc3987 was not present in Fedora while in fact, the test requirements were missing from the config (added them in the same patch as pytest-runner) - tests are running ok now - I prefer to keep that convention with slugname even if used once if you don't mind same links: https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator.spec https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Thanks for incorporating my changes. > - I prefer to keep that convention with slugname even if used once if you don't mind I don't agree with it, but as I said, it's up to you :). > - added a patch removing the pytest-runner from the setup.py (I'll try to escalate the issue upstream) Thanks. Please leave a comment explaining the patch and a comment linking to the upstream issue or at least saying that it will be submitted upstream. You can also shorten Patch0 to Patch, if you'd like. > %bcond_with tests Please enable the tests. > PYTHONWARNINGS=ignore %python3 -m pytest tests Please use the %pytest macro.
done, please check again (same links) https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator.spec https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3986-validator-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Package approved! Thanks for addressing all of my comments.
@maxwell I'm the one who has to thank you for your patience and thorough review.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rfc3986-validator
Package is now in repositories, closing review.