Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-furo/python-furo.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-furo/python-furo-2022.06.21-1.fc38.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Furo is a Sphinx theme, which is: - Intentionally minimal --- the most important thing is the content, not the scaffolding around it. - Responsive --- adapting perfectly to the available screen space, to work on all sorts of devices. - Customizable --- change the color palette, font families, logo and more! - Easy to navigate --- with carefully-designed sidebar navigation and inter-page links. - Good looking content --- through clear typography and well-stylized elements. - Good looking search --- helps readers find what they want quickly. - Biased for smaller docsets --- intended for smaller documentation sets, where presenting the entire hierarchy in the sidebar is not overwhelming. The spec file refers to a prepare_vendor.sh script, which has become the standard way of dealing with JavaScript BuildRequires. That script is available here: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-furo/prepare_vendor.sh.
I'll take it
The package looks qite good to me. Except for the way we have to deal with JS bundling but this is a thing which won't change anytime soon. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies ^^^ I guess this is something went wrong on my machine. It should be autogenerated I believe. - 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 furo.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ^^^ I cannot see it in a source tarball. Likely a build artefact so it can be omitted as well as the previous one. ===== 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 - MIT. Also please check rpmlint messages for *-doc subpackage. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. I suggest you to explicitly add %license file to the main package as well as for %doc. [X +/-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. It's JS. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [X]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. See comments above. [X]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 (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: 2 python-furo-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python-furo-doc/html/_static/scripts/furo-extensions.js python3-furo.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/furo/theme/furo/static/scripts/furo-extensions.js python-furo-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause python-furo-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY-SA-4.0 python-furo-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/python-furo-doc/html/_static/design-style.4045f2051d55cab465a707391d5b2007.min.css /usr/share/doc/python-furo-doc/html/_sphinx_design_static/design-style.4045f2051d55cab465a707391d5b2007.min.css python-furo-doc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/doc/python-furo-doc/html/_static/design-tabs.js /usr/share/doc/python-furo-doc/html/_sphinx_design_static/design-tabs.js 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s ^^^ Please check these invalid-license messages before uploading. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pradyunsg/furo/archive/2022.06.21/furo-2022.06.21.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d23ee549c4275e68e7fd498055e9e7c854a98bdd81522e0303947e3a25defb3e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d23ee549c4275e68e7fd498055e9e7c854a98bdd81522e0303947e3a25defb3e Requires -------- python3-furo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(sphinx) < 6~~ with python3.11dist(sphinx) >= 4) python(abi) python3.11dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.11dist(pygments) python3.11dist(sphinx-basic-ng) python-furo-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-furo: python-furo python3-furo python3.11-furo python3.11dist(furo) python3dist(furo) python-furo-doc: python-furo-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121594 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH It looks good to me. I am going to approve it as is but please address my minor remarks before uploading.
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #2) > The package looks qite good to me. Except for the way we have to deal with > JS bundling but this is a thing which won't change anytime soon. Alas, no. In this case, the JS is only needed at build time, so I think this approach is okay. > - 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 furo.js.LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > ^^^ I cannot see it in a source tarball. Likely a build artefact so it can > be omitted as well as the previous one. I see it in the build directory. It has the same contents as LICENSE, so I think we can ignore it. > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. I > suggest you to explicitly add %license file to the main package as well as > for %doc. Yes, I will add LICENSE to the main package. It is already in there as /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/furo-2022.6.21.dist-info/LICENSE, but it isn't marked as a license; i.e., rpm -qL doesn't show it. > ^^^ Please check these invalid-license messages before uploading. Those are because I used SPDX license names in the License field, but rpmlint doesn't understand SPDX license names yet. Hopefully this will be addressed soon by the rpmlint developers. > It looks good to me. I am going to approve it as is but please address my > minor remarks before uploading. Will do. Thanks again!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-furo
FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba
FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.