Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: This micro library is a PyYaml wrapper with sane behaviour to read and write readable YAML safely, typically when used with configuration files. With saneyaml you can dump readable and clean YAML and load safely any YAML preserving ordering and avoiding surprises of type conversions by loading everything except booleans as strings. Optionally you can check for duplicated map keys when loading YAML. 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
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ====== [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-saneyaml/licensecheck.txt => Some scripts appear to carry a different license. Please clarify. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. => One error was found: python3-saneyaml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/saneyaml.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Probably needs a shebang removal. Haven't checked. [ ] Most of the questions I asked in bug 2235084 comment 2 apply here as well. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-saneyaml/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-saneyaml-doc-0.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc38.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/tmp3uczipt6')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-saneyaml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/saneyaml.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 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: 2 python3-saneyaml.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/saneyaml.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nexB/saneyaml/archive/v0.6.0/saneyaml-0.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 913122d695f813a3e3870ccbfac29bffc66727bf5d15a8c420f2f8aaee0fa653 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 913122d695f813a3e3870ccbfac29bffc66727bf5d15a8c420f2f8aaee0fa653 Requires -------- python3-saneyaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(pyyaml) python-saneyaml-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-saneyaml: python-saneyaml python3-saneyaml python3.11-saneyaml python3.11dist(saneyaml) python3dist(saneyaml) python-saneyaml-doc: python-saneyaml-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-saneyaml --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Ping?
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Thank you for the eview!
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540173 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235082-python-saneyaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06540173-python-saneyaml/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.
Copying the issues mentioned in the initial review here: (In reply to Sandro from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues > ====== > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* > Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD > 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views > sentence", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 76 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- > rpmbuild/results/python-saneyaml/licensecheck.txt > > => Some scripts appear to carry a different license. Please clarify. I don't see any change in the license field. Could you address the issue with the multitude of licenses please? > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One > solution is to make it require the main package. I, personally don't like the solution you chose. Now, if both the main and the doc sub package are installed, the license files are duplicated. How much sens does it make or how likely is it that someone would want to install the doc sub package without the main package? Food for thought. But this is no longer blocking the review. But also see my remark below. > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > > => One error was found: > python3-saneyaml.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/saneyaml.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > > Probably needs a shebang removal. Haven't checked. The issue is not solved. `%py3_shebang_fix` puts the correct shebang in the file. But the issue is that the file has a shebang, but is not executable. It shouldn't be executable, since it is not meant to be run standalone. So, the shebang needs to be removed - not changed - to resolve the error. > [ ] Most of the questions I asked in bug 2235084 comment 2 apply here as > well. 3. Duplicate license files All license files are defined in `license_files` in `setup.cfg`. That means `%pyproject_save_files` treats them as such and marks them as license files. Use `rpm -q --licensefiles -p $RPM` to verify. Long story short, you can drop `%license`. Since the above applies to this package (see rpm -q --licensefiles -p python3-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm) you are already duplicating the license files. With the doc sub package installed they are even tripled.
Seems I forgot to save my changes before uploading. > => Some scripts appear to carry a different license. Please clarify. Added the one script that has a different one. Note that test data have false positive because they contains license texts. > solution is to make it require the main package. OK > 3. Duplicate license files OK Thanks for the review. Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Let me apologize upfront for being pedantic. But the package can still not be approved. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6) > Seems I forgot to save my changes before uploading. Happens to the best of us. ;) > > => Some scripts appear to carry a different license. Please clarify. > > Added the one script that has a different one. I'm not sure which file you are referring to here, but it may not be of importance. See next... > Note that test data have false positive because they contains license texts. I see. Indeed, the files `licensecheck` stumbled upon are not shipped in the final package. So that issue is solved. > > solution is to make it require the main package. > > OK I'm not sure about your reply here. You didn't change the package to make the doc sub package require the main package. But the license files are included now when installing the main package or any sub package. So, that issue is solved as well. But... However, I just saw you generate HTML documentation using Sphinx. Sorry for not noticing earlier. In that case you would need to adopt the license specifier, because the Javascript files, Sphinx puts in there, carry their own license and you would need to add additional `Provides:`. See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ I think it's easiest to not generate HTML docs and drop the sub package or generate PDF docs instead. The latter usually requires a myriad of dependencies just for generating the PDFs. > > 3. Duplicate license files > > OK Ack One more thing I noticed in the latest version of the spec file, is your loop to remove shebangs: for lib in src/saneyaml.py; do sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new && touch -r $lib $lib.new && mv $lib.new $lib done Isn't that convoluted? You were only required to remove the shebang from one file, e.g. `sed -i '/^#!.*python/d' src/saneyaml.py`. As I mentioned in one of the other reviews, this package would also benefit from using forge macros. But that is a matter of personal preference and not a requirement. Summing it up, the _only_ issue left to get this approved is the doc sub package as explained above.
You may want to ask upstream, why they mark non-license files as license files in their setup.cfg: license_files = apache-2.0.LICENSE NOTICE AUTHORS.rst CHANGELOG.rst CODE_OF_CONDUCT.rst https://github.com/nexB/saneyaml/blob/40e5fa7c0b6e0012452053839184e5cd29802063/setup.cfg#L29C1-L34C24
> One more thing I noticed in the latest version of the spec file, is your loop to remove shebangs: It's based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries >I'm not sure about your reply here. You didn't change the package to make the doc sub package require the main package. But the license files are included now when installing the main package or any sub package. So, that issue is solved as well. But... I did... but it appear it was not saved again?? Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Added license for Sphinx # BSD-2-Clause: Sphinx javascript # MIT: jquery License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND MIT BuildArch: noarch Provides: bundled(js-sphinx_javascript_frameworks_compat) Provides: bundled(js-doctools) Provides: bundled(js-jquery) Provides: bundled(js-language_data) Provides: bundled(js-searchtools) Final files: Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-saneyaml-0.6.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Looks all good now. => APPROVED Thanks for bringing scancode-toolkit to Fedora. 🩵
Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-saneyaml
FEDORA-2023-4ac3b7f0e8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4ac3b7f0e8
FEDORA-2023-945f0e051a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-945f0e051a
FEDORA-2023-30e93d37f2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30e93d37f2
FEDORA-2023-945f0e051a 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-2023-945f0e051a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-945f0e051a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-4ac3b7f0e8 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-2023-4ac3b7f0e8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4ac3b7f0e8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-30e93d37f2 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-2023-30e93d37f2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30e93d37f2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-4ac3b7f0e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-945f0e051a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-30e93d37f2 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.