Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/ruff.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/ruff-0.1.11-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: An extremely fast Python linter, written in Rust. Ruff aims to be orders of magnitude faster than alternative tools while integrating more functionality behind a single, common interface. Ruff can be used to replace Flake8 (plus dozens of plugins), isort, pydocstyle, yesqa, eradicate, pyupgrade, and autoflake, all while executing tens or hundreds of times faster than any individual tool. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111401846
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6868617 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257092-ruff/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06868617-ruff/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
All dependencies should now be available in mirrored rawhide repos in addition to the koji buildroot. [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6872353 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257092-ruff/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06872353-ruff/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file missing_copyright_notice.rs is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
I took a small peak at the package and the only issue I found was regarding the license field. It is missing "0BSD" in the license specification. See https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/blinxen/fedora-review-ruff/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06873297-ruff/builder-live.log.gz @michel You can find copr builds for all arches + review templates here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/blinxen/fedora-review-ruff/build/6873297/
You are indeed correct. I have updated the license list (same URLs). I must have missed updating this after updating the package from v0.1.9 to v0.1.11.
(In reply to blinxen from comment #5) > I took a small peak at the package and the only issue I found was regarding > the license field. > It is missing "0BSD" in the license specification. > See > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/blinxen/fedora-review- > ruff/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06873297-ruff/builder-live.log.gz > > @michel You can find copr builds for all arches + review > templates here: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/blinxen/fedora-review-ruff/build/ > 6873297/ thanks. The review service build is also done - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6872353
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 missing_copyright_notice.rs is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text => false positive, this is not a license ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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]: 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 92215 bytes in 4 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ruff-0.1.11-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ruff-debuginfo-0.1.11-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ruff-debugsource-0.1.11-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ruff-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/tmpg_1rk5td')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ruff.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ruff ruff.spec:46: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 46) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: ruff-debuginfo-0.1.11-1.fc40.x86_64.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/tmpxmu6th0c')] checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ruff-debugsource". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ruff-debuginfo". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ruff". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/archive/v0.1.11/ruff-0.1.11.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47cf8357c7036829ea859184cce125cd256b9f74afc2f5288c697facbb6f6677 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47cf8357c7036829ea859184cce125cd256b9f74afc2f5288c697facbb6f6677 Requires -------- ruff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) ruff-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ruff-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- ruff: python3.12dist(ruff) python3dist(ruff) ruff ruff(x86-64) ruff-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) ruff-debuginfo ruff-debuginfo(x86-64) ruff-debugsource: ruff-debugsource ruff-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ruff --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruff
Imported and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-47bfa7c810 Thank you all for your review(s)! I'll do initial builds for stable branches once all the dependencies are out of "testing".