Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-libarchive.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-libarchive-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: The path of libarchive.so is either determined by distro data or explicitily taken from EXTRACTCODE_LIBARCHIVE_PATH environment variable. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg: [copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:eclipseo:scancode-toolkit] name=Copr repo for scancode-toolkit owned by eclipseo baseurl=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-/ type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=True gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/pubkey.gpg repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1
I will take this review.
Hmmm, I know you had a successful build in your COPR, but a mock build fails for me in %check: + /usr/bin/python3 -sP /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py -f /builddir/build/BUILD/python-extractcode-libarchive-1.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64-pyproject-modules Check import: extractcode_libarchive Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 171, in <module> main() File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 167, in main import_modules(modules) File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/import_all_modules.py", line 100, in import_modules importlib.import_module(module) File "/usr/lib64/python3.12/importlib/__init__.py", line 90, in import_module return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1381, in _gcd_import File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1354, in _find_and_load File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1325, in _find_and_load_unlocked File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 929, in _load_unlocked File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap_external>", line 994, in exec_module File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 488, in _call_with_frames_removed File "/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-extractcode-libarchive-1.0.0-1.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/extractcode_libarchive/__init__.py", line 31, in <module> from plugincode.location_provider import LocationProviderPlugin ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'plugincode' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.H89P4D (%check)
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-libarchive.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-extractcode-libarchive-21.5.31-1.fc39.src.rpm Thanks!
This package is APPROVED. Two tiny issues to consider before importing: - Remove the -t argument to %pyproject_buildrequires since this project does not test with tox. - Note the spurious-executable-perm warning from rpmlint below. Please remove the executable bits on README.rst. Although, it should be noted that README.rst is also present in the dist-info directory, and the executable bits are automatically removed from that copy, so maybe it doesn't need to be in %doc also. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 354 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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 ------- Checking: python3-extractcode-libarchive-21.5.31-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-extractcode-libarchive-21.5.31-1.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/tmpn2ckrpu3')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python3-extractcode-libarchive/README.rst python-extractcode-libarchive.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: extractcode-libarchive-21.5.31.tar.gz python3-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libarchive-devel python3-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: E: devel-dependency libarchive-devel ================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/python3-extractcode-libarchive/README.rst python3-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libarchive-devel python3-extractcode-libarchive.noarch: E: devel-dependency libarchive-devel 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- python3-extractcode-libarchive (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libarchive-devel python(abi) Provides -------- python3-extractcode-libarchive: python-extractcode-libarchive python3-extractcode-libarchive python3.12-extractcode-libarchive python3.12dist(extractcode-libarchive-system-provided) python3dist(extractcode-libarchive-system-provided) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235063 -m fedora-rawhide-eclipseo Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ruby, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, R, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review, Jerry!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-extractcode-libarchive
FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622
FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef
FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913
FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-1ed1c3a913 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-f18d1d0622 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-48fcea39ef has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days