Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-imagecodecs.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-imagecodecs-2022.9.26-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Imagecodecs is a Python library that provides block-oriented, in-memory buffer transformation, compression, and decompression functions for use in Tifffile, Czifile, Zarr, kerchunk, and other scientific image input/output packages. Decode and/or encode functions are implemented for Zlib (DEFLATE), GZIP, ZStandard (ZSTD), Blosc, Brotli, Snappy, LZMA, BZ2, LZ4, LZ4F, LZ4HC, LZW, LZF, LZFSE, LZHAM, PGLZ (PostgreSQL LZ), RCOMP (Rice), ZFP, AEC, SZIP, LERC, NPY, PNG, APNG, GIF, TIFF, WebP, QOI, JPEG 8-bit, JPEG 12-bit, Lossless JPEG (LJPEG, LJ92, JPEGLL), JPEG 2000 (JP2, J2K), JPEG LS, JPEG XL, JPEG XR (WDP, HD Photo), MOZJPEG, AVIF, HEIF, RGBE (HDR), Jetraw, PackBits, Packed Integers, Delta, XOR Delta, Floating Point Predictor, Bitorder reversal, Byteshuffle, Bitshuffle, CMS (color space transformations), and Float24 (24-bit floating point). Fedora Account System Username: orion Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101811914
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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 LICENSE-aom is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - It seems that pyproject_files includes the license file only in some cases ("Only license files declared via PEP 639 License-File field are detected", https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/README.md). So you have to include the license file with the usual macro. - There is a newer version imagecodecs 2023.7.4 (packaging the latest version is a SHOULD, not a MUST) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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. [X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [X]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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: [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.
I'm not sure that the various LICENSE-* files really need to get marked as %license. imagecodecs is merely making use of those libraries - not providing source code with those licenses. As noted in the spec, newer versions of imagecodecs require libtiff 4.5.0 which is not yet packaged in Fedora.
What I mean is that the main license file LICENSE is not included in the binary rpm. If you do a `rpm -ql` of the rpm file you will see it is not there. All other licenses are actually included under /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/imagecodecs/licenses
Ah, gotcha. Uploaded a new version. scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103440410
The package is approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-imagecodecs
Thank you for the review. Checked in and built.