Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-varint.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A basic varint implementation in python Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=119357361
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7630827 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2293468-python-varint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07630827-python-varint/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.
The spec file unfortunately fails to pass some checks. Details below. ===== ISSUES ===== 1) According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi you should not use the pypi source, because it doesn't contain a license. Could you use https://github.com/fmoo/python-varint/archive/refs/tags/1.0.2.tar.gz ? It contains the license. 2) According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation the documentation should be included. Could you add "%doc README.md"? 3) There are no tests in your package, so could you change "%pyproject_buildrequires -t" to "%pyproject_buildrequires"? 4) According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_test_macros one should still run some tests. Could you use %pyproject_check_import? 5) According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming the name of built RPM should be python3-varint. In your case it's python-varint. Could you correct this? 6) No need to use "Source0:". Could you change it to "Source:"? 7) You seem to not use "VCS: git:%{url}.git" for anything. Could you remove it? 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. 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- varint/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/__pycache__ [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/__pycache__ [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). [!]: 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. [!]: 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 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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). [?]: 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-varint-1.0.2-1.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/tmp2vlryan_')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-varint.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python-varint". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/varint/varint-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6ecc02377ac5ee9d65a6a8ad45c9ff1dac8ccee19400a5950fb51d594214ca5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6ecc02377ac5ee9d65a6a8ad45c9ff1dac8ccee19400a5950fb51d594214ca5 Requires -------- python-varint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python-varint: python-varint python3.13dist(varint) python3dist(varint) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-varint --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, fonts, R, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #2) > The spec file unfortunately fails to pass some checks. Details below. > > ===== ISSUES ===== > 1) According to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_source_files_from_pypi you should not use the pypi source, because it > doesn't contain a license. Could you use > https://github.com/fmoo/python-varint/archive/refs/tags/1.0.2.tar.gz ? It > contains the license. Done. > 2) According to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation > the documentation should be included. Could you add "%doc README.md"? I don't think this is necessary. This README.md is extremely short (basically a one-line description) and doesn't contain anything useful for users. > 3) There are no tests in your package, so could you change > "%pyproject_buildrequires -t" to "%pyproject_buildrequires"? Done. > 4) According to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_test_macros one should still run some tests. Could you use > %pyproject_check_import? Added. > 5) According to > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming > the name of built RPM should be python3-varint. In your case it's > python-varint. Could you correct this? Done. > 6) No need to use "Source0:". Could you change it to "Source:"? Done. > 7) You seem to not use "VCS: git:%{url}.git" for anything. Could > you remove it? Removed. New spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-varint.spec New SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=119904504
Created attachment 2038715 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7630827 to 7698803
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7698803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2293468-python-varint/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07698803-python-varint/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.
LGTM. The package is APPROVED, but please correct this warning before committing python3-varint.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A basic varint implementation in python. and also correct the typo in "Upstram" to "Upstream". Thanks. 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. 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. Licenses found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-varint/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib, /usr, /usr/share/licenses [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib, /usr, /usr/share/licenses [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 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-varint-1.0.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-varint-1.0.2-1.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/tmpi4i9vl84')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-varint.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A basic varint implementation in python. python3-varint.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-varint". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fmoo/python-varint/archive/1.0.2/varint-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8bf59ea0b2774478d757c7f0b256d1cb19b62aace29791565f260cbc29febcd0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8bf59ea0b2774478d757c7f0b256d1cb19b62aace29791565f260cbc29febcd0 Requires -------- python3-varint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-varint: python-varint python3-varint python3.13-varint python3.13dist(varint) python3dist(varint) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-varint --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, R, PHP, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to wojnilowicz from comment #6) > LGTM. The package is APPROVED, but please correct this warning before > committing > > python3-varint.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A basic varint > implementation in python. > > and also correct the typo in "Upstram" to "Upstream". > > Thanks. Thank you! I'll fix these issues before uploading.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-varint
FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5 (python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5
FEDORA-2024-ac960b2454 (python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ac960b2454
FEDORA-2024-ac960b2454 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-2024-ac960b2454 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ac960b2454 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-ac960b2454 (python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-36c34e20b5 (python-varint-1.0.2-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.