Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets-2023.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Fetch links or download and cache spatial data example files. The geodatasets contains an API on top of a JSON with metadata of externally hosted datasets containing geospatial information useful for illustrative and educational purposes.
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110132430
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6740138 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253837-python-geodatasets/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06740138-python-geodatasets/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.
geodatasets-2023.3.0/geodatasets/lib.py is under BSD-3-Clause Actually, only pyproject.toml (and PKG-INFO) refers to MIT (and few lines up -3-Clause with typo). But even upstream LICENSE file refers to BSD-3-Clause. So for the purpose of review I would accept if you change the license to BSD-3-Clause AND MIT but I strongly suggest to discuss this with upstream and correcting it. Either way. Beside that, I see no problem.
*** Bug 2256299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I've reported that upstream, and they have made a new release correcting the license: Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets-2023.12.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. 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. [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. Note: Documentation size is 11587 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: 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]: 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: [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python The spec file produces python-geodatasets-2023.12.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm but it should create python3-* subpackage https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
Created attachment 2006691 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6740138 to 6840036
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6840036 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2253837-python-geodatasets/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06840036-python-geodatasets/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.
(In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #6) > [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python > > The spec file produces python-geodatasets-2023.12.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm but it > should create python3-* subpackage > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Oops, that's a pretty obvious error; fixed that and also the extraneous license listing. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-geodatasets/python-geodatasets-2023.12.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
All issues resolved. APPROVED
Thank you for the review, Miroslav
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-geodatasets
FEDORA-2024-4cb22ce2f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4cb22ce2f5
FEDORA-2024-4cb22ce2f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.