Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06878182-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat.specSRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06878182-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Generates text from a Python list of variables or will read a line of text into Python variables according to the FORTRAN format statement passed. Fedora Account System Username: davidsch copr test build is here, including review template https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/davidsch/testing/build/6878182/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6887714 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258034-python-fortranformat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06887714-python-fortranformat/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.
I forgot o remove some commented out code, here is a cleaned version: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06887722-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06887722-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2008399 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6887714 to 6887726
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6887726 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258034-python-fortranformat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06887726-python-fortranformat/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.
Minor update: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06900326-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06900326-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Created attachment 2008768 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6887726 to 6905814
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6905814 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258034-python-fortranformat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06905814-python-fortranformat/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.
Based on the commit message “Version 2.0.0”, I think it’s safe to take https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/commit/07e119639746ebe1cf3016b508625d67585a052e as the commit corresponding to the 2.0.0 release on PyPI. I would suggest adding a comment that the release isn’t tagged on GitHub and linking your issue https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/issues/32, but at the same time, I would go ahead and package it *as if* that commit were tagged, without worrying about https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots Then you could enable at least the “handwritten” tests, something like: --- ./before/python-fortranformat.spec 2024-01-17 13:15:46.900368184 -0500 +++ ./rebuild/python-fortranformat.spec 2024-01-17 14:24:06.742339660 -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +# Run at least the handwritten tests? +%bcond tests 1 +# Currently, these tests require nose, which is deprecated +# (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateNose), so packages are not +# permitted to add new dependencies on it. +%bcond minimal_tests 0 +# Not only do these tests require nose, but the necessary files take a long +# time (~30 minutes) to generate. +%bcond full_tests 0 + Name: python-fortranformat Version: 2.0.0 Release: %{autorelease} @@ -5,12 +15,27 @@ License: MIT URL: https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat -Source: %pypi_source fortranformat +# The PyPI sdist lacks tests, CHANGELOG.md, etc. that are present in GitHub +# source archives. There are no release tags +# (https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/issues/32), so we must +# reference a particular commit; however, since we are confident that this +# commit corresponds to the PyPI release, we do not add a snapshot information +# field to the Version as prescribed in +# https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots. +%global release_commit 07e119639746ebe1cf3016b508625d67585a052e +Source: %{url}/archive/%{release_commit}/py-fortranformat-%{release_commit}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel +%if %{with tests} BuildRequires: python3-pytest +%if %{with minimal_tests} || %{with full_tests} BuildRequires: make +%endif +%if %{with full_tests} +BuildRequires: gcc-gfortran +%endif +%endif %global _description %{expand: Generates text from a Python list of variables or will read a line of text @@ -26,7 +51,8 @@ %prep -%autosetup -p1 -n fortranformat-%{version} +%autosetup -p1 -n py-fortranformat-%{release_commit} +sed -r -i 's@\bpython\b@%{python3}@' Makefile %generate_buildrequires @@ -35,6 +61,15 @@ %build %pyproject_wheel +%if %{with tests} +%if %{with minimal_tests} +%make_build buildtests +%endif +%if %{with full_tests} +# This takes a long time! +%make_build compilertests +%endif +%endif %install @@ -43,14 +78,19 @@ %check -## Bits not included in release -## https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/issues/32 -## Can be run either with: -#make buildtests -#make runtests -## or pytest macro should also work -#%%pytest %pyproject_check_import fortranformat +%if %{with tests} +%if %{without full_tests} && %{without minimal_tests} +# At least run the hand-written tests: +%pytest tests/handwritten +%endif +%if %{with minimal_tests} +%py3_test_envvars %make_build runminimaltests +%endif +%if %{with full_tests} +%py3_test_envvars %make_build runtests +%endif +%endif %files -n python3-fortranformat -f %{pyproject_files} The above also demonstrates how you could run the minimal tests and/or the full tests, but you will need to remove the dependency on python3-nose first (or persuade upstream to do so). If I add a BR on python3-nose after the BR on make (which of course isn’t permitted) then the minimal tests *do* pass in the example above. The full tests might pass too, but I haven’t yet waited long enough for the --with full_tests build to finish. Of course, if you switch to the GitHub archive, you’ll need to audit its contents to make sure none of the new files have licensing issues. What do you think? Beyond that, I haven’t attempted a review, but I did notice: - If you switch to the GitHub archive, you should add %doc CHANGELOG.md to %files - In either case, since are relying on %pyproject_save_files to handle the LICENSE file, you should pass the new -l option to %pyproject_save_files
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > The above also demonstrates how you could run the minimal tests and/or the > full tests, but you will need to remove the dependency on python3-nose first > (or persuade upstream to do so). If I add a BR on python3-nose after the BR > on make (which of course isn’t permitted) then the minimal tests *do* pass > in the example above. The full tests might pass too, but I haven’t yet > waited long enough for the --with full_tests build to finish. A correction to the spec from the above diff is needed to try the full tests, since we need to make “buildtests” too when running the full tests: %build %pyproject_wheel %if %{with minimal_tests} || %{with full_tests} %make_build buildtests %endif %if %{with full_tests} # This takes a long time! %make_build compilertests %endif I stopped my test build after over an hour spent in %check on a pretty fast machine; obviously, we won’t be running more than the minimal tests in koji even if the nose dependency is removed.
Thanks for the comments! I think I have taken all your comments into account in the updated version. I have patched out nose, and am trying to run the full tests in copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/davidsch/testing/build/7027022/ SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027018-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027018-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2017287 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6905814 to 7027765
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027765 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258034-python-fortranformat/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027765-python-fortranformat/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.
On second look, it appears the Makefile is kind of just an example. It is set up by default to generate tests (using our Fortran compiler) into tests/autogen/{input,output}/gfortran/10_2_0_osx_intel, but then test against tests/autogen/{input,output}/ifort/9_1_linux_intel. I’m trying replacing # This takes a long time! %make_build compilertests with # The name of this directory is not really important; we imitate the upstream # convention so that bug reports make more sense. test_dir="$(gfortran -dumpfullversion | tr . _)_linux_%{_arch}" pushd tests/autogen/generate # This takes a long time! %{python3} gen_input_tests.py 'gfortran %s -o %s' "${test_dir}" %{python3} gen_output_tests.py 'gfortran %s -o %s' "${test_dir}" popd and %if %{with tests} %if %{without minimal_tests} # At least run the hand-written tests: %pytest tests/handwritten %endif %if %{with minimal_tests} %py3_test_envvars %make_build runminimaltests %endif %if %{with full_tests} %py3_test_envvars %make_build runtests %endif %endif with %if %{with tests} %pytest tests/handwritten %if %{with minimal_tests} %pytest tests/minimal %endif %if %{with full_tests} test_dir="$(gfortran -dumpfullversion | tr . _)_linux_%{_arch}" %pytest "tests/autogen/input/ifort/${test_dir}" %pytest "tests/autogen/output/ifort/${test_dir}" %endif %endif I think this is the right approach, but we’ll see if it’s enough to get the full tests passing.
Oops, %pytest "tests/autogen/input/ifort/${test_dir}" %pytest "tests/autogen/output/ifort/${test_dir}" should have been %pytest "tests/autogen/input/gfortran/${test_dir}" %pytest "tests/autogen/output/gfortran/${test_dir}" Trying again!
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #13) > I think this is the right approach, but we’ll see if it’s enough to get the > full tests passing. It isn’t enough, and I think I must still be misunderstanding how the full tests should work. Anyway, the package could be approved without running the full tests, so I’ll try to come back and look at this when I have enough time.
I have requested a couple of small changes below, but they are SHOULD rather than MUST, and the package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec - Please use “%pyproject_save_files -l fortranformat” to protect against accidental disappearance of the license file in a future update. See: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros - Please consider submitting remove-nose.patch upstream, or add a spec-file comment explaining why it makes sense to carry this patch downstream-only. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 636 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258034-python- fortranformat/20240217/2258034-python-fortranformat/licensecheck.txt A number of files in the source tarball appear under various other licenses: - GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1 - BSD-2-Clause - FSFULLR - FSFUL (possibly, FSFUL AND GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1) - GFDL-1.2-invariants-or-later - GPL-3.0-or-later However, all of these appear in documentation, examples, tests, or build-system files that are not packaged directly and do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs, so “MIT” is correct. Furthermore, all of these licenses are allowed in Fedora. If you start to package examples in the future, you will need to carefully examine their licenses to choose an appropriate License tag for the subpackage you ship them in. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.12 This diagnostic is spurious and represents a fedora-review bug. [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: 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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fortranformat-2.0.0.dist-info/LICENSE [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 3478 bytes in 1 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?) [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). [x]: Package functions as described. (At least basic tests pass.) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113698349 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: %define is from rpmautospec, not in the original spec file [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =============================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplhqez5mb')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s ========== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/archive/07e119639746ebe1cf3016b508625d67585a052e/py-fortranformat-07e119639746ebe1cf3016b508625d67585a052e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ecef23512e42183f835f496e5e95170b5d5f22ba91676ef5ec0992ad02140f90 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ecef23512e42183f835f496e5e95170b5d5f22ba91676ef5ec0992ad02140f90 Requires -------- python3-fortranformat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-fortranformat: python-fortranformat python3-fortranformat python3.12-fortranformat python3.12dist(fortranformat) python3dist(fortranformat) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258034 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, Perl, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review. I have been to slow to import the package, and thus I need to have the package re-reviewed, I am sorry about that. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07387184-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07387184-python-fortranformat/python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm I have updated: * add `-l` to %pyproject_save_files * submitted the patch + added link to patch * Upstream added tags, so I am using those now I have run the full tests, and reported the failures upstream. I think the expected results are bogous, but that will be discussed with upstream. I have disabled the full tests, as that takes around 2 hours, is discouraged upstream and fails as well.
Thanks for the update. I don’t remember this package very well, so I’ll re-familiarize myself with it and re-review it as soon as I have a chance.
In case it is of any use to you, I have here a copr build with review enabled: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/davidsch/review/build/7392350/
Everything looks great. The spec file is clean, all issues and suggestions have been addressed, and the build runs as many tests as possible. I appreciate that you discussed the failures in the full tests with upstream, and I agree that skipping them is entirely appropriate. Thanks for your work on this. The package is APPROVED.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Free Documentation License v1.2 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 636 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2258034-python- fortranformat/licensecheck.txt A number of files in the source tarball appear under various other licenses: - GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1 - BSD-2-Clause - FSFULLR - FSFUL (possibly, FSFUL AND GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-Exception-3.1) - GFDL-1.2-invariants-or-later - GPL-3.0-or-later However, all of these appear in documentation, examples, tests, or build-system files that are not packaged directly and do not contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs, so “MIT” is correct. Furthermore, all of these licenses are allowed in Fedora. If you start to package examples in the future, you will need to carefully examine their licenses to choose an appropriate License tag for the subpackage you ship them in. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /usr This diagnostic is spurious and represents a fedora-review bug. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/doc, /usr This diagnostic is spurious and represents a fedora-review bug. [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: 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 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]: 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 5870 bytes in 2 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?) [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). [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=117378022 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: OK: the %define is inserted by rpmautospec. [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-fortranformat-2.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =========================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmptlceldd0')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ====================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ===================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brendanarnold/py-fortranformat/archive/refs/tags/v2.0.0.tar.gz#./python-fortranformat-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b29333940da959e4155ec5e323c3a4a76578d3684ce687aa2bb675df2d0c399 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b29333940da959e4155ec5e323c3a4a76578d3684ce687aa2bb675df2d0c399 Requires -------- python3-fortranformat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-fortranformat: python-fortranformat python3-fortranformat python3.12-fortranformat python3.12dist(fortranformat) python3dist(fortranformat) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258034 --mock-options=--dnf Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fortranformat