Spec URL: https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pdm-pep517.spec SRPM URL: https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pdm-pep517-1.0.2-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: This is the backend for PDM projects, while you can also use it alone. It reads the metadata of PEP 621 format and coverts it to Core metadata. Fedora Account System Username: supakeen This package is a dependency for updating python-pdir2 to the latest version, a package I just took over from orphan status. COPR build here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/supakeen/for-review/build/4637881/
See comments at bottom. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file boolean.py.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License", "ISC License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 159 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora- review/2107818-python-pdm-pep517/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 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]: 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. [!]: 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) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 python3-pdm-pep517.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/license_expression/data/cc-by-4.0.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/license_expression/cc-by-4.0.LICENSE python3-pdm-pep517.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/tomli_w/LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/tomli/LICENSE python3-pdm-pep517.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/tomli_w/py.typed /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pdm/pep517/_vendor/tomli/py.typed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pdm-pep517/pdm-pep517-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9d5a2aa5896f3733755097945ec2a751cd19ee3399306e099514014b1e49adf1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9d5a2aa5896f3733755097945ec2a751cd19ee3399306e099514014b1e49adf1 Requires -------- python3-pdm-pep517 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pdm-pep517: python-pdm-pep517 python3-pdm-pep517 python3.11-pdm-pep517 python3.11dist(pdm-pep517) python3dist(pdm-pep517) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2107818 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH --------------- Comments: 1.0.4 has been released upstream since you made this review request. Please update to it. > License: MIT There's quite a few licenses in play here. Apache-2.0 MIT Public Domain BSD-3-Clause ISC These should all be listed. > BuildRequires: gcc git Most people put one BR per line and I'd advise doing so, but not required. > BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) You could just use this: `BuildRequires: pytest` > # Needed for tests? > git config --global user.email "you" > git config --global user.name "Your Name" Yes it is needed for the tests. Why not move it to the %check section right before running %pytest? > %doc README.md It would be useful to include `CHANGELOG.md` here as well.
Are you still interested in completing this review? This package is a blocker for several other packages. If you're not interested in completing the review and maintaining it anymore I'd be happy to take ownership of it.
Hey Jonathan, I am still interested. Here's a new SRPM: https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pdm-pep517-1.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm and here's the new specfile: https://src.tty.cat/Fedora-Packages/python-pdm-pep517/raw/commit/11ba4900e2b883a9f162a39afe4d1b48edfb4a05/python-pdm-pep517.spec I've included (most of) your comments and review fails. Notably missing: 1. The CHANGELOG.md is not included in the sdist of upstream, I could report/ask for it there. 2. I can't figure out how to format the License field, would it be AND on all these licenses or OR?
> 2. I can't figure out how to format the License field, would it be AND on all these licenses or OR? It should be AND.
Updated the license fields, 1. SRPM here: https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pdm-pep517-1.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm 2. specfile here: https://src.tty.cat/Fedora-Packages/python-pdm-pep517/raw/commit/fee26b6f0f9b3b37dee3c850126243acac7e5d65/python-pdm-pep517.spec Is there anything I have missed? :)
Sorry for the delay. Looks good to me! Package is approved! (Please build for EPEL too)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pdm-pep517