Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.src.rpm Description: Library to generate railroad diagrams Fedora Account System Username: zbyszek
Unofficial 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355- python-railroad-diagrams/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 2 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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/r/railroad-diagrams/railroad-diag rams-2.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7413ffa194583bd510efc3e4668f61d5a38beeca18 6bb7c36eea6d0d6f03fb45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7413ffa194583bd510efc3e4668f61d5a38beeca18 6bb7c36eea6d0d6f03fb45 Requires -------- python3-railroad-diagrams (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-railroad-diagrams: python-railroad-diagrams python3-railroad-diagrams python3.11-railroad-diagrams python3.11dist(railroad-diagrams) python3dist(railroad-diagrams) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355-pytho n-railroad-diagrams/srpm/python-railroad-diagrams.spec 2022-07-15 18:06:27.8418 50930 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355-pytho n-railroad-diagrams/srpm-unpacked/python-railroad-diagrams.spec 2022-07-14 22:20 :00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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 + Name: python-railroad-diagrams Version: 2.0.4 @@ -48,3 +57,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Thu Jul 14 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> 2.0.4-2 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Thu Jul 14 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> 2.0.4-1 +- Initial version Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107355 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, Haskell, PHP, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, font s Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Would be helpful to have a Koji/Copr build b) Ensure posted spec file matches that in the SRPM c) Is this program likely to be used through an egg interface?
Hi, thanks for the review. a) Would be helpful to have a Koji/Copr build It's a noarch build, so the mock build that fedora-review does is "good enough". A build in copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/zbyszek/pyparsing-3/build/4634236/ b) Ensure posted spec file matches that in the SRPM That's just fedora-review not understanding autochangelog. That diff is stuff added automatically by rpmautospec, and can be ignored. c) Is this program likely to be used through an egg interface? I don't have the least idea. There's a .dist-info directory, I hope that enough. There's one consumer of this — pyparsing — and it seems happy with the current packaging.
Thanks for your responses. a) Would be helpful to have a Koji/Copr build > It's a noarch build, so the mock build that fedora-review does is "good enough". > A build in copr: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/zbyszek/pyparsing-3/build/4634236/ Ok. Great. b) Ensure posted spec file matches that in the SRPM That's just fedora-review not understanding autochangelog. That diff is stuff added automatically by rpmautospec, and can be ignored. Ok. c) >> Is this program likely to be used through an egg interface? > I don't have the least idea. There's a .dist-info directory, I hope that enough. > There's one consumer of this — pyparsing — and it seems happy with the current packaging. Is it possible to use the %pyproject_wheel macro? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dist_info_metadata d) There are tests upstream, https://github.com/tabatkins/railroad-diagrams/blob/gh-pages/test.py but the test used seems sufficient https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests
A slightly modified spec file can be found at: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-railroad-diagrams/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04637669-python-railroad-diagrams/python-railroad-diagrams.spec This does not generate .egg_info though the macro is created again in the spec file.
Thanks. The spec file with your changes: Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.src.rpm
Unofficial 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355- python-railroad-diagrams/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 2 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. [?]: 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). [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: [!]: 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). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/r/railroad-diagrams/railroad-diag rams-2.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7413ffa194583bd510efc3e4668f61d5a38beeca18 6bb7c36eea6d0d6f03fb45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7413ffa194583bd510efc3e4668f61d5a38beeca18 6bb7c36eea6d0d6f03fb45 Requires -------- python3-railroad-diagrams (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-railroad-diagrams: python-railroad-diagrams python3-railroad-diagrams python3.11-railroad-diagrams python3.11dist(railroad-diagrams) python3dist(railroad-diagrams) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355-python-railroad-diagrams/ srpm/python-railroad-diagrams.spec 2022-07-17 13:24:46.4090 56371 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/python-railroad-diagrams/2107355-python-railroad-diagrams/ srpm-unpacked/python-railroad-diagrams.spec 2022-07-17 12:28 :54.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + 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 + Name: python-railroad-diagrams Version: 2.0.4 @@ -50,3 +59,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Jul 16 2022 Benson Muite <benson_muite> 2.0.4-2 +- Convert to %%pyproject_wheel + +* Thu Jul 14 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> 2.0.4-1 +- Initial version Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107355 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Java, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, fonts, SugarActivit y Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) The pyparsing railroad example https://github.com/pyparsing/pyparsing/blob/master/examples/railroad_diagram_demo.py works b) Not sure how to remove the rpmautospec macro. Possibly related issue https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/238
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > c) Is this program likely to be used through an egg interface? > > I don't have the least idea. There's a .dist-info directory, I hope that > enough. AFAIK there is no "egg interface", that is just fedora-review using strange terminology. A dist-info directory supersedes egg-info.
Benson, your review is unofficial, as you are not yet sponsored? Is somebody needed to take this over?
Yes. Someone would need to take this over.
First of all, the output you posted has: "Cannot parse rpmlint output" As a reviewer, you are supposed to run rpmlint and see if there are any real problems. Fedora-Review is a nice tool, but it sometimes requires manual steps as well. On the spec and SRPM: $ rpmlint ./python-railroad-diagrams* ============================ 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: 2 python-railroad-diagrams.src: W: strange-permission python-railroad-diagrams.spec 600 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.2 s I don't know if this actually breaks any rules, but the spec file permission is indeed a tad weird. Usually, a spec file should have 0644 permissions. Built package $ rpmlint ./python3-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.noarch.rpm ============================ 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Installed package: $ rpmlint --installed python3-railroad-diagrams ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Next things I like to check in Python packages are versioned requires and provides (as Fedora-Review strips the versions): $ rpm -qRp python3-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.noarch.rpm python(abi) = 3.11 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 $ rpm -qPp python3-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.noarch.rpm python-railroad-diagrams = 2.0.4-2.fc37 python3-railroad-diagrams = 2.0.4-2.fc37 python3.11-railroad-diagrams = 2.0.4-2.fc37 python3.11dist(railroad-diagrams) = 2.0.4 python3dist(railroad-diagrams) = 2.0.4 Both look good. Sometimes, Python packages tend to provide e.g. version 0, which would be a bad thing. Another thing are BuildRequires. I check them for linters, coverage and deprecated Python packages: $ rpm -qRp python-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.src.rpm pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3-devel python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(setuptools) >= 40.8 python3dist(wheel) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(DynamicBuildRequires) <= 4.15.0-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 All good. Finally, the license files: $ rpm -qpl --licensefiles python3-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-2.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/railroad_diagrams-2.0.4.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-railroad-diagrams/LICENSE And I see that the `%license LICENSE` line in %files is duplicated. I also read the spec line by line to see if something strikes me as weird. I found: URL: https://pypi.org/project/railroad-diagrams/ Upstream lists https://github.com/tabatkins/railroad-diagrams as their homepage and I belive this URL will serve our users and package maintainers better than a link to the package index. I also found: %global _description %{expand: %{summary}.} That seems rather... lazy? Upstream has a nice description in their README, with a bit of final touches: This is a small Python library for generating railroad diagrams using SVG. %global _description %{expand: Railroad diagrams are a way of visually representing a grammar in a form that is more readable than using regular expressions or BNF. They can easily represent any context-free grammar, and some more powerful grammars.} The rest was checked by Benson. --------------------- tl;dr: - remove %license LICENSE - URL: https://github.com/tabatkins/railroad-diagrams - expand the %description - chmod a+r python-railroad-diagrams.spec Thanks!
Spec URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams.spec SRPM URL: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-railroad-diagrams-2.0.4-3.fc37.src.rpm > - remove %license LICENSE > - URL: https://github.com/tabatkins/railroad-diagrams > - expand the %description Done. > - chmod a+r python-railroad-diagrams.spec That's also an artifact of rpmautospec. It rewrites the spec file from the srpm and saves it in this mode. This check is also stopped being useful when we moved to dist-git. Git does not store permissions for other users. It only stores 'x' as one bit. During checkout, permissions on files are set using umask and sharing configuration (which are both settings on the side of the user doing the checkout). Thus it 0o077 part of the mask does not matter, because it's ephemeral and local. Once the file is imported into dist-git, this will be "reset".
I wasn't aware git does not store full permission but I am going to trust you on that. Package APPRVOED. One more curiosity thing: %check cat >test.py <<EOF from railroad import Diagram, Choice d = Diagram("foo", Choice(0, "bar", "baz")) d.writeSvg(sys.stdout.write) EOF %python3 railroad.py I assumed upstream has no tests, but then I noticed it's %python3 railroad.py, not %python3 test.py here, so I've checked railroad.py and it executes test.py. Why we don't use the upstream test.py? Would that reason justify a comment here?
test.py is missing from the pypi package. I just created something based on the docs. But I guess the file from github would be better. I'll try to switch to that when importing the package.
Built in a side tag. Thank you for the review!