Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-gbinder/raw/main/f/python-gbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-gbinder Description: Cython extension module for gbinder Fedora Account System Username: aleasto
Here's a copr build of the srpm https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04620379-python-gbinder/python-gbinder-1.1.0-2.fc37.src.rpm
Hello Alessandro, thank you for the package. Overall it looks very good. > SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-gbinder We have a tool called `fedora-review` which parses a Bugzilla ticket, downloads the package, and performs some checks on it. Because of this, the URL needs to be a direct link for downloading the SRPM file. > Here's a copr build of the srpm > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04620379-python-gbinder/python-gbinder-1.1.0-2.fc37.src.rpm Exactly like this :-) Unfortunately, the link returns 404 now. When you rebuild a package in Copr, or build its newer version, the old package is automatically removed after some time. If you have a pending review in Bugzilla, it is a good idea to always update the SRPM and spec URLs when you rebuild the package in Copr. > %global _description \ > Cython extension module for gbinder Can you please change the description into 2-3 full sentences? Looking at the package as an outsider, I have no idea what gbinder is, and what this extension module allows me to do. > python-gbinder.src: E: no-changelogname-tag You don't have a %changelog section in your spec file, please take a look here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. Looking at the source code, there is a tests directory present. If it makes sense, can you please add a %check section to your spec file and run the tests there? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_GNU_Hello/#_running_tests
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #2) > Hello Alessandro, > thank you for the package. > > Overall it looks very good. > > > > SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-gbinder > > We have a tool called `fedora-review` which parses a Bugzilla ticket, > downloads the package, and performs some checks on it. Because of this, > the URL needs to be a direct link for downloading the SRPM file. > > > > Here's a copr build of the srpm > > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04620379-python-gbinder/python-gbinder-1.1.0-2.fc37.src.rpm > > Exactly like this :-) > Unfortunately, the link returns 404 now. When you rebuild a package in > Copr, or build its newer version, the old package is automatically > removed after some time. If you have a pending review in Bugzilla, it > is a good idea to always update the SRPM and spec URLs when you > rebuild the package in Copr. I didn't realize i can edit a submission. I will be doing that.
> I didn't realize i can edit a submission. To be more precise, I didn't mean editing the first comment in the Bugzilla ticket. You can simply add a new comment containing new Spec URL: ... SRPM URL: ... links. You can see 2025124 as an example. > I will be doing that. Perfect :-)
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4) > > I didn't realize i can edit a submission. > > To be more precise, I didn't mean editing the first comment in the > Bugzilla ticket. You can simply add a new comment containing new > > Spec URL: ... > SRPM URL: ... > > links. You can see 2025124 as an example. Ah... ok! RE: tests I had a look at the tests directory and it looks like they're meant for manual testing, not really for automated testing... You're supposed to launch the two python scripts and type some inputs in the client one to demonstrate inter-process-comunication with the server.
> I had a look at the tests directory and it looks like they're meant > for manual testing, not really for automated testing... You're > supposed to launch the two python scripts and type some inputs in the > client one to demonstrate inter-process-comunication with the server. Thank you for the explanation. In that case, we will have to leave the spec file without a %check section. Or, you can add an empty %check section and add a comment inside it, explaining what you just told me. Whatever option you prefer.
Updated package following review: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/waydroid/python-gbinder/raw/main/f/python-gbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04996911-python-gbinder/python-gbinder-1.1.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
Thank you for the update > License: GPLv3 According to the "Changes/SPDX Licenses Phase 1", all new pacakges must use a valid SPDX expression in their License field Please take a look at this document, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Particularly the "How do we convert existing Fedora abbreviations to SPDX expressions?" section Otherwise the package looks good to me
Updated the license field Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05133167-python-gbinder/python-gbinder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/aleasto/waydroid/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05133167-python-gbinder/python-gbinder-1.1.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review/2120130-python-gbinder/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-gbinder [?]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-gbinder-1.1.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-gbinder-debugsource-1.1.1-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-gbinder-1.1.1-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdxheql0_')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-gbinder.x86_64: W: no-documentation ============================================================================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ============================================================================ 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: 2 python3-gbinder.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-gbinder: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/gbinder.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/erfanoabdi/gbinder-python/archive/1.1.1/gbinder-python-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 64ef246a7c538105d92350c88fe8634b4d64e04b45dce95b76abc0d2f3376246 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 64ef246a7c538105d92350c88fe8634b4d64e04b45dce95b76abc0d2f3376246 Requires -------- python3-gbinder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgbinder libgbinder.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-gbinder-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-gbinder: python-gbinder python3-gbinder python3-gbinder(x86-64) python3.11-gbinder python3.11dist(gbinder-python) python3dist(gbinder-python) python-gbinder-debugsource: python-gbinder-debugsource python-gbinder-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2120130 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gbinder
FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65
FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1
FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ea5ae84d65 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-29ad2e00d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.