Spec URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/proton-core.spec SRPM URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/python-proton-core-0.1.15-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Core Proton VPN package. Contains SSO and API modules Fedora Account System Username: calexandru2018 RPMLint: ============================ 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 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Reproducible: Always
Initial comments: a) Please use SPDX license identifier https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-or-later.html https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names b) Source URL should be in the form: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags c) spec and srpm urls should b to raw files that fedora-review can download
Some of the tests fail for me: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-proton-core/build/6519279/ They may need to be disabled if cannot run without network access, otherwise may be good to ensure they pass. FAS should be your username calexandru2018 not your email address.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1) > Initial comments: > a) Please use SPDX license identifier > https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-or-later.html > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names > b) Source URL should be in the form: > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_git_tags > c) spec and srpm urls should b to raw files that fedora-review can download Not sure I understand b) given that I'm linking a release from GitHub and that's the only way it's possible. Plus I had made a submission last year with exactly the same URL format and from what I see nothing has changed in that regard. Regarding c), the spec is already linked as raw file, though I still need to find a way for the srpm.
b) See the documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ c) Many people use their fedorapeople.org space, which for you would be https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/ However, have found it easier to link to a successful copr build. For the failed build see: Files: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/ spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/python-proton-core.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/python-proton-core-0.1.11-1.fc40.src.rpm Some tutorials on copr: https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/copr/about.html
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > b) See the documentation: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > c) Many people use their fedorapeople.org space, which for you would be > https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/ > However, have found it easier to link to a successful copr build. For the > failed build see: > Files: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/ > fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/ > spec file: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/ > fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/python-proton-core.spec > srpm: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/ > fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06519279-python-proton-core/python-proton-core-0.1.11- > 1.fc40.src.rpm > > > Some tutorials on copr: > https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/copr/about.html Oh wow thanks, was not aware thank you. I've updated the initial post with all the necessary data and fixes. Have removed the tests since they require internet connection (tests are run internally our gitlab instance against stable fedora versions)
a) Thanks. Please add a comment in the spec file why the tests are disabled. b) If none of the tests can be run, or only a limited subset, please add a %check section with: %pyproject_check_import see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests c) Setup.py contains: install_requires=["requests", "bcrypt", "python-gnupg", "pyopenssl", "aiohttp", "importlib-metad ata; python_version < '3.8'"] Maybe a patch can be applied to remove the restriction python_version < '3.8' current fedora releases use python 3.11 and 3.12 d) Can you remove %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} and the section: Requires: python3-bcrypt Requires: python3-gnupg Requires: python3-pyOpenSSL Requires: python3-requests Requires: python3-aiohttp Requires: python3-importlib-metadata as the Python Fedora rpm build tooling can likely do this e) Please leave status as assigned. Status is changed upon resolution to approve, disapprove or not continue for some other reason.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #6) > a) Thanks. Please add a comment in the spec file why the tests are disabled. > > b) If none of the tests can be run, or only a limited subset, please add a > %check section with: > %pyproject_check_import > see: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_tests > > c) Setup.py contains: > install_requires=["requests", "bcrypt", "python-gnupg", "pyopenssl", > "aiohttp", "importlib-metad > ata; python_version < '3.8'"] > Maybe a patch can be applied to remove the restriction python_version < > '3.8' current fedora > releases use python 3.11 and 3.12 > > d) Can you remove > %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} > and the section: > Requires: python3-bcrypt > Requires: python3-gnupg > Requires: python3-pyOpenSSL > Requires: python3-requests > Requires: python3-aiohttp > Requires: python3-importlib-metadata > as the Python Fedora rpm build tooling can likely do this > > e) Please leave status as assigned. Status is changed upon resolution to > approve, disapprove or > not continue for some other reason. a) + b) Addressed, thank you c) My bad that's actually a typo, should've been python_version >= '3.9', will address that, should be fixed in a couple of hours d) Is it possible to leave it there ? As I could like to be explicit about it. e) Understood
Spec URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/package.spec SRPM URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/python-proton-core-0.1.11-1.fc38.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: package.spec should be python-proton-core.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Vendor: Proton AG <opensource> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_tags_and_sections [-]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define unmangled_name proton- core, %define github_repo_name python-proton-core [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fedora/2243305-package/srpm- unpacked/package.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-proton-core-0.1.11-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-proton-core-0.1.11-1.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/tmpfngnx89y')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-proton-core.src: W: summary-not-capitalized proton-core library python3-proton-core.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized proton-core library python3-proton-core.noarch: W: no-documentation python-proton-core.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 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-proton-core.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized proton-core library python3-proton-core.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ProtonVPN/python-proton-core/archive/0.1.11/python-proton-core-0.1.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e1042ab5a33933f886c535f50012473045e59fba3e4ad9942222d904c70f55bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1042ab5a33933f886c535f50012473045e59fba3e4ad9942222d904c70f55bb Requires -------- python3-proton-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-aiohttp python3-bcrypt python3-gnupg python3-importlib-metadata python3-pyOpenSSL python3-requests Provides -------- python3-proton-core: python-proton-core python3-proton-core python3.12-proton-core python3.12dist(proton-core) python3dist(proton-core) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2243305 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Haskell, Java, fonts, Ocaml, R, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Vendor: Proton AG <opensource> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_tags_and_sections b) At least one test can be run: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6527996 Would be great to run more if possible. The environment may differ from that used for internal testing. The main restriction is that tests should not attempt to connect to other resources on the internet. c) in the spec file please use %global unmangled_name proton-core %global github_repo_name python-proton-core instead of %define unmangled_name proton-core %define github_repo_name python-proton-core d) Can documentation be generated, for example man pages? See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6527996 e) Can the reason for the conflict be documented in the spec file? f) Requires must be automatically generated: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatically-generated-dependencies
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9) I've updated the links, could you please take a look.
Regarding tests I'm not sure how I can separate them in the SPEC file, a good part of tests do require internet connection and specifically written for out internal testing infrastructure, but other can be run locally as they don't require anything. Also not sure what you mean with the example for man pages. The package is not necessarily intended to be used by itself, as it's mostly intended for us, but it should not stop anyone else from using it for something, but again the point for this package is mainly for our linux client to be able to work, and necessarily for development as python dev should be done in a virtual environment and never on a live OS.
Spec URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/proton-core.spec SRPM URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/python-proton-core-0.1.15-1.fc38.src.rpm
@(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12) > Spec URL: https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/proton-core.spec > SRPM URL: > https://calexandru2018.fedorapeople.org/python-proton-core-0.1.15-1.fc38.src. > rpm Do the files meet the necessary requirements or is there something that I should update ?
Checking if can run a few more tests. Assume these do not change often, so may catch problems with Fedora dependencies that could give a poor user experience. People may wish to develop modified clients, so having docs locally available is nice. It is not a must, but does not seem like significant extra effort. An example spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-proton-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06527996-python-proton-core/python-proton-core.spec