Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: PyOngc provides a python module to access astronomical data about NGC and IC objects from the OpenNGC database. Fedora Account System Username: mattia COPR scratch build with example review: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mattia/Testing/build/5188389/
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6174938 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2156937-python-pyongc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06174938-python-pyongc/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-pyongc (description) [-]: 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. [ ]: 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: Test run failed [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [!]: 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) Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 4.1 starting (python version = 3.11.4, NVR = mock-4.1-1.fc38)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 4.1 INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (fallback) Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 4.1 INFO: Package manager dnf detected and used (direct choice) Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/python3-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm /builddir/python3-PyOngc+data-1.0.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M ee59ee43cda549c7880c2eeffca5085a -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.53jwdlwy:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf-3 --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 39 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/python3-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm /builddir/python3-PyOngc+data-1.0.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0xhttb2k')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-pyongc.src: W: strange-permission python-pyongc.spec 600 python3-pyongc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ongc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyOngc/PyOngc-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 237b63c59d2138a020978356f8bc65919f449c9deccb92b7789b5815efd09761 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 237b63c59d2138a020978356f8bc65919f449c9deccb92b7789b5815efd09761 Requires -------- python3-pyongc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(click) python3.12dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-pyongc: python-pyongc python3-pyongc python3.12-pyongc python3.12dist(pyongc) python3dist(pyongc) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/srpm/python-pyongc.spec 2023-08-03 09:20:15.434039687 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/srpm-unpacked/python-pyongc.spec 2023-07-16 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## 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 PyOngc %global modname pyongc @@ -60,3 +70,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Jul 16 2023 John Doe <packager> - 1.0.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2156937 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Package installation seemed to fail b) The sub package python3-PyOngc+data does not contain any files c) If a sub package is needed, should it be named python3-pyongc+data instead of python3-PyOngc+data ?
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-PyOngc/python-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 1985390 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6174938 to 6345421
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345421 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2156937-python-pyongc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345421-python-pyongc/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > > Comments: > a) Package installation seemed to fail Can't reproduce with update fedora-review > b) The sub package python3-PyOngc+data does not contain any files Yes, that's the way python Extras metapackages work. > c) If a sub package is needed, should it be named python3-pyongc+data > instead of python3-PyOngc+data ? Fixed
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-pyongc (description) [-]: 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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 3061 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: 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. [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 ===== 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pyongc-1.0.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ================================================= 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp00m_l2a3')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-pyongc.src: W: strange-permission python-pyongc.spec 600 python3-pyongc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ongc ================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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-pyongc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ongc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyOngc/PyOngc-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 237b63c59d2138a020978356f8bc65919f449c9deccb92b7789b5815efd09761 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 237b63c59d2138a020978356f8bc65919f449c9deccb92b7789b5815efd09761 Requires -------- python3-pyongc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(click) python3.12dist(numpy) Provides -------- python3-pyongc: python-pyongc python3-pyongc python3.12-pyongc python3.12dist(pyongc) python3dist(pyongc) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/srpm/python-pyongc.spec 2023-08-28 17:04:57.104793854 +0000 +++ /home/fedora/2156937-python-pyongc/srpm-unpacked/python-pyongc.spec 2023-08-26 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## 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 PyOngc %global modname pyongc @@ -60,3 +70,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Aug 26 2023 John Doe <packager> - 1.0.1-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2156937 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: 1) Approved, thanks for adding this to Fedora.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyongc
FEDORA-2023-76ab64996b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-76ab64996b
FEDORA-2023-76ab64996b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.