Spec URL: https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/python-scikit-build/python-scikit-build.spec SRPM URL: https://troycurtisjr.fedorapeople.org/python-scikit-build/python-scikit-build-0.16.3-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Improved build system generator for CPython C/C++/Fortran/Cython extensions. Better support is available for additional compilers, build systems, cross compilation, and locating dependencies and determining their build requirements. The scikit-build package is fundamentally just glue between the setuptools Python module and CMake. Fedora Account System Username: troycurtisjr
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95645460
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Apache License 2.0". 231 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/2156243-python-scikit-build/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/scikit-build/scikit-build-0.16.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 656ecabf264df6e23d103e02f4887c0fe5a47a2cd42f66cf3de08201de0cbf37 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 656ecabf264df6e23d103e02f4887c0fe5a47a2cd42f66cf3de08201de0cbf37 Requires -------- python3-scikit-build (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(distro) python3.11dist(packaging) python3.11dist(setuptools) python3.11dist(wheel) Provides -------- python3-scikit-build: python-scikit-build python3-scikit-build python3.11-scikit-build python3.11dist(scikit-build) python3dist(scikit-build) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jasmin/2156243-python-scikit-build/srpm/python-scikit-build.spec 2023-02-04 00:17:57.483247048 -0500 +++ /home/jasmin/2156243-python-scikit-build/srpm-unpacked/python-scikit-build.spec 2022-12-25 12:17:35.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname scikit-build @@ -63,3 +73,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Dec 25 2022 Troy Curtis Jr <troy> - 0.16.3-1 +- Initial python-scikit-build spec. Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2156243 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Howdy Jasmin! 👋 It looks like you might be a new aspiring contributor (presuming jasmin is your FAS username), and so you are perhaps starting work following through the packaging guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/). First of all, welcome and I'm excited to see your motivation to help make Fedora better! A few helpful hints to get you started: 1. I would start by picking one or two packages, and going through the full process first. This is more a "go deep" instead of a "go wide" approach. Once you've gained some experience you'll be more prepared to contribute on other packages. 2. Note that the fedora-review tool is an excellent resource, but it is only a starting point. In particular, note how most of the items have an empty box (e.g. "[ ]"). Each of these empty boxes are there to be manually assessed by the reviewer (that you! ;) ) The main contribution of the reviewer is going through this process, and double checking the submitter's work on the packaging process. Posting the raw output without review is minimally useful. 3. While the fedora-review tool is great, it doesn't always get things right, and in particular sometimes things listed as issues actually are not. Especially as you try to build experience with packaging, it is a useful exercise to dig in to understand how you might fix the issue if you were the submitter. This could potentially really help out the submitter as well (as long as you describe your found solution in a comment), but also you might find there is actually no issue to fix. For example, I presume one of the reason this was posted was due to: ``` Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. ``` However, in this case this is just because fedora-review doesn't have good support for `%autorelease` (well it's [fixed but not yet released](https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/427)).
> License: MIT and BSD-2-Clause-Views and Apache-2.0 I think SPDX requires "AND". Hmm, latest tag is 0.17.4, please update. The packaging is using the expected templates, so really not that much to review. Everything looks OK.
Ooops, @thrnciar already packages this a few months ago: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-scikit-build ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh! Even better. One more dependency that is knocked out. I'm glad you found it before I got things updated on mine.