Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-pyclip/raw/main/f/python-pyclip.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-pyclip Description: Cross-platform Clipboard module for Python with binary support Fedora Account System Username: aleasto
You did not provide a valid SRPM URL.
The srpm is just built from the git repo i linked. Here's a copr build https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/03750887-python-pyclip/python-pyclip-0.6.0-1.fc37.src.rpm
Hi Alessandro, Just a few nitpicks on your spec. > %global pypi_name pyclip Setting and using this macro makes the spec file harder to read. Using the literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use this macro and write "pyclip" literally, for example, on the URL. > %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} Instead of %{python3_pkgversion}, you can use simply 3. > BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros I believe this package is not needed for building. Moreover, pyclip contains tests that are not being called on the spec file. It would be nice to have the tests. NOTE: I'm not a packager yet and currently looking for sponsorship. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal
(In reply to Maíra Canal from comment #3) > Hi Alessandro, > > Just a few nitpicks on your spec. > > > %global pypi_name pyclip > > Setting and using this macro makes the spec file harder to read. Using the > literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use > this macro and write "pyclip" literally, for example, on the URL. I don't know about that. I just followed what all other pypi specs do. %{pypi_name} in github URL doesn't make sense. > > %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} > > Instead of %{python3_pkgversion}, you can use simply 3. I think %{python3_pkgversion} here is correct > > BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros > > I believe this package is not needed for building. Removed. > Moreover, pyclip contains tests that are not being called on the spec file. > It would be nice to have the tests. > I suppose I could try adding the tests. However they require an X server running for testing the X clipboard, and a Wayland server for testing the wayland clipboard. There already are bash snippets to do this in github CI (.github/workflows/unittests.yml) that i could replicate, but i'm not sure if we want to do that
(In reply to Alessandro Astone from comment #4) > (In reply to Maíra Canal from comment #3) > > Hi Alessandro, > > > > Just a few nitpicks on your spec. > > > > > %global pypi_name pyclip > > > > Setting and using this macro makes the spec file harder to read. Using the > > literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use > > this macro and write "pyclip" literally, for example, on the URL. > I don't know about that. I just followed what all other pypi specs do. > %{pypi_name} in github URL doesn't make sense. Maybe there can be a little confusion in this sense as the Python Packaging Guidelines changed in 2021 [1]. You can check the new example spec file on the docs. Your spec file looks like is following much of the “201x-era” Python packaging guidelines. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > > > %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} > > > > Instead of %{python3_pkgversion}, you can use simply 3. > I think %{python3_pkgversion} here is correct > > > > BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros > > > > I believe this package is not needed for building. > Removed. > > > Moreover, pyclip contains tests that are not being called on the spec file. > > It would be nice to have the tests. > > > I suppose I could try adding the tests. However they require an X server > running for testing the X clipboard, and a Wayland server for testing the > wayland clipboard. > There already are bash snippets to do this in github CI > (.github/workflows/unittests.yml) that i could replicate, but i'm not sure > if we want to do that
(In reply to Maíra Canal from comment #5) > (In reply to Alessandro Astone from comment #4) > > (In reply to Maíra Canal from comment #3) > > > Hi Alessandro, > > > > > > Just a few nitpicks on your spec. > > > > > > > %global pypi_name pyclip > > > > > > Setting and using this macro makes the spec file harder to read. Using the > > > literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use > > > this macro and write "pyclip" literally, for example, on the URL. > > I don't know about that. I just followed what all other pypi specs do. > > %{pypi_name} in github URL doesn't make sense. > > Maybe there can be a little confusion in this sense as the Python Packaging > Guidelines > changed in 2021 [1]. You can check the new example spec file on the docs. > Your spec file > looks like is following much of the “201x-era” Python packaging guidelines. > > [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > Best Regards, > - Maíra Canal > Done.
Latest package: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-pyclip/raw/main/f/python-pyclip.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04996917-python-pyclip/python-pyclip-0.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Updated package version Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-pyclip/raw/main/f/python-pyclip.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05009650-python-pyclip/python-pyclip-0.7.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Hello Alessandro, thank you for the package. 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* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2120129-python-pyclip/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 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]: 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. [ ]: 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. [!]: %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: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 python3-pyclip.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyclip 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/spyoungtech/pyclip/archive/v0.7.0/pyclip-0.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6fd5e0eaa40ff349959d1cee2872eee90ae32065cc5df9714b1066981535acde CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6fd5e0eaa40ff349959d1cee2872eee90ae32065cc5df9714b1066981535acde Requires -------- python3-pyclip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyclip: python-pyclip python3-pyclip python3.11-pyclip python3.11dist(pyclip) python3dist(pyclip) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120129 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, R, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyclip