Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fedrq/fedrq.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fedrq/fedrq-0.5.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: fedrq is a tool to query the Fedora and EPEL repositories. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98866321
Benson, are you still planning to review this?
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: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "MIT License GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "*No copyright* The Unlicense", "*No copyright* The Unlicense GNU General Public License, Version 2". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/fedrq/2179593-fedrq/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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 6 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [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]: 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 the first command in %prep. Sources 0, 1 and 2 are not passed to gpgverify. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fedrq-0.5.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm fedrq-0.5.0-1.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/tmpktqyfwei')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.3 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://meta.sr.ht/~gotmax23.pgp : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928 https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/fedrq/refs/download/v0.5.0/fedrq-0.5.0.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5540ea0000aa2d9b2af297fb98857e0e312c30503c8225be72f0a0fbcea2f9cc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5540ea0000aa2d9b2af297fb98857e0e312c30503c8225be72f0a0fbcea2f9cc https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/fedrq/refs/download/v0.5.0/fedrq-0.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6dfc46caeecea5f351376afe5108b7eeb1b28154c195262ae3db423c1a43209 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6dfc46caeecea5f351376afe5108b7eeb1b28154c195262ae3db423c1a43209 Requires -------- fedrq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3-dnf or (python3-libdnf5 and python3-rpm)) (python3.11dist(pydantic) >= 1 with python3.11dist(pydantic) < 2) /usr/bin/python3 distribution-gpg-keys python(abi) python3.11dist(requests) Provides -------- fedrq: fedrq python3.11dist(fedrq) python3dist(fedrq) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2179593 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Ruby, fonts, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) should gpgverify be the first command in the prep section? b) Can the sed command be replaced by the %py3_shebang_fix macro and possibly moved to the build section? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fedrq/fedrq.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/fedrq/fedrq-0.5.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Use %py3_shebang fix and fix %gpgverify placement. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98980982
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5690889 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2179593-fedrq/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05690889-fedrq/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.
Thanks for creating this useful tool. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedrq
Thanks for the review, Benson!
FEDORA-2023-a3ebe566cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a3ebe566cc
FEDORA-2023-a3ebe566cc has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
I've pushed fedrq to all Fedora branches: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=fedrq-0.5.0