Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gridhead/syncstar/main/syncstar.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/releases/download/0.1.0/syncstar-0.1.0a3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Guest operated service for creating bootable USB storage devices at any community conference kiosk Fedora Account System Username: t0xic0der
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7650270 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2293766-syncstar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07650270-syncstar/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/syncstar/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
@jkadlcik I am not sure if I understood the issue properly but for what it is worth - my specfile makes use of pyproject-rpm-macros and hence the `Source0` has value `%{pypi_source}` corresponding to the PyPI release of the stated version. A part of my confusion also hails from not being able to see the diff file that you have linked here. Thanks for the help in advance!
Hello Akashdeep, > A part of my confusion also hails from not being able to see the diff file that you have linked here. Totally understandable. We already merged a fix in the Copr code, it will be available on a next release. Here is how you can reproduce the problem: # This is your SRPM URL from Comment 0 wget https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/releases/download/0.1.0/syncstar-0.1.0a3-1.fc40.src.rpm # Extract it rpm2cpio syncstar-0.1.0a3-1.fc40.src.rpm | cpio -i # Download the tarball from PyPI curl https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/be/e1/f6d881d3b233a9ed9f2d97b7ad91bb4078d03f3f78afb2677dcd522b64d0/syncstar-0.1.0a3.tar.gz > upstream.tar.gz # Compare the tarballs ls -l upstream.tar.gz syncstar-0.1.0a3.tar.gz The two tarballs clearly differ because they have different filesize. Not sure what exactly is different in them.
@jkadlcik I am afraid the sizes will be different due to the compression applied on the static assets of the package. I have HTML files, JavaScript files, SVG files, CSS files etc. in the codebase. I suspect that is what must have happened here. Please check the assets from the most recent build on COPR. Tarball URL: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/be/e1/f6d881d3b233a9ed9f2d97b7ad91bb4078d03f3f78afb2677dcd522b64d0/syncstar-0.1.0a3.tar.gz Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/t0xic0der/syncstar/fedora-40-x86_64/07650251-syncstar/syncstar.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/t0xic0der/syncstar/fedora-40-x86_64/07650251-syncstar/syncstar-0.1.0a3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Guest operated service for creating bootable USB storage devices at any community conference kiosk Fedora Account System Username: t0xic0der [fedora-review-service-build] - Is this how I can invoke another automatic check?
Created attachment 2038205 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7650270 to 7664538
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7664538 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2293766-syncstar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07664538-syncstar/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.
> Is this how I can invoke another automatic check? Exactly. Or by pasting your new Spec URL and SRPM URL. > Please check the assets from the most recent build on COPR. The fedora-review isn't complaining anymore so the tarballs should match now.
Cool. Thanks for the approval, @jkadlcik!
Hi @jamricha : did you intend to set the fedora-review flag here? (I don't see any comments related to a review).
Hi @sanjay.ankur : I was looking at this for a colleague and must have saved before entering the review comment, my mistake
Hello Akashdeep, overall the package looks good, there are just a few minor issues. > %global desc Guest operated service for creating bootable USB storage devices at any community conference kiosk The package description should be wrapped to 80 characters per line https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description > Summary: %{desc} Ideally, a summary != description. > > MIT License > ----------- > syncstar-0.1.0a3-build/syncstar-0.1.0a3/syncstar/frontend/static/css3/bs.min.css > syncstar-0.1.0a3-build/syncstar-0.1.0a3/syncstar/frontend/static/jscn/bs.min.js The licensecheck.txt mentions these two files with the MIT license. I'm not sure if the package license should then be "AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" or not. > %changelog The changelog is meant for tracking the package changes, not upstream changes
Hello @jkadlcik, > The package description should be wrapped to 80 characters per line > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description I will shorten the description. > Ideally, a summary != description. I will probably use the current longer description as the summary here but worst-case scenario, I will still prefer to have the same string in both places. > The licensecheck.txt mentions these two files with the MIT license. I'm not sure if the package license should then be "AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" or not. I'm not sure here either as my license-fu is weak, but I think that the MIT license is permissive enough to be compatible with the AGPL-3.0-or-later license. > The changelog is meant for tracking the package changes, not upstream changes Fair. I will remove the larger units from the changelog section and include a link to the upstream GitHub release where folks can see the release if needed. Thanks for the review, @jkadlcik!
Just came across this open tab 😀, so here are my 2¢: (In reply to Akashdeep Dhar from comment #12) > > Ideally, a summary != description. > > I will probably use the current longer description as the summary here but > worst-case scenario, I will still prefer to have the same string in both > places. As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description 😉: “The summary should be a short and concise description of the package. The description expands upon this.” How about (wrap to 80 chars): --- 8< --- Summary: Service to create bootable USB storage media ... %description SyncStar lets ordinary users install bootable operating systems onto USB storage media. It is intended to be deployed on kiosk appliances, for instance to offer this service to conference guests. --- >8 --- > > The licensecheck.txt mentions these two files with the MIT license. I'm not sure if the package license should then be "AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" or not. > > I'm not sure here either as my license-fu is weak, but I think that the MIT > license is permissive enough to be compatible with the AGPL-3.0-or-later > license. Here’s what https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_basic_rule has to say: “… Unless your package includes multiple binary subpackages and you opt to specify subpackage-specific License: tags, the Preamble License: tag expression should be an enumeration of all licenses found in the source code of the package, but excluding any licenses that cover material in the source code that is not copied into the binary RPM(s), either verbatim or transformed in some way (for example, by compilation). …” I understand this to mean that it should be “AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT”.
Thanks for the reviews, @nphilipp, @jkadlcik, @jamricha, @sanjay.ankur. Here goes nothing. Tarball URL: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/4a/f7/ec091b82f3de90e0e008504ca10d7e1d3f65d690dafaf14a9ece96cfe279/syncstar-0.1.0a4.tar.gz Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/t0xic0der/syncstar/fedora-40-x86_64/07695726-syncstar/syncstar.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/t0xic0der/syncstar/fedora-40-x86_64/07695726-syncstar/syncstar-0.1.0a4-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Service for creating bootable USB storage devices at community conference kiosks Fedora Account System Username: t0xic0der [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2038608 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7664538 to 7695729
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7695729 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2293766-syncstar/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07695729-syncstar/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.
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: "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "MIT License". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/syncstar/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/doc [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/doc, /usr/bin, /usr [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 367 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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. [!]: %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: syncstar-0.1.0a4-1.fc41.noarch.rpm syncstar-0.1.0a4-1.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/tmpu8wyj3uw')] checks: 32, packages: 2 syncstar.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bootable', 'Summary(en_US) bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table') syncstar.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bootable', '%description -l en_US bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table') syncstar.noarch: E: spelling-error ('signages', "%description -l en_US signages -> signage, signage's, sign ages") syncstar.src: E: spelling-error ('bootable', 'Summary(en_US) bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table') syncstar.src: E: spelling-error ('bootable', '%description -l en_US bootable -> bookable, boo table, boo-table') syncstar.src: E: spelling-error ('signages', "%description -l en_US signages -> signage, signage's, sign ages") syncstar.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary syncstar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 12 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 (none): E: there is no installed rpm "syncstar". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/syncstar/syncstar-0.1.0a4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80895b6f5e48b0b5a09b249217b87b572b1ef6c80595f4f7a2bb1b077d432938 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80895b6f5e48b0b5a09b249217b87b572b1ef6c80595f4f7a2bb1b077d432938 Requires -------- syncstar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(celery) < 6~~ with python3.13dist(celery) >= 5.3) (python3.13dist(click) < 9~~ with python3.13dist(click) >= 8) (python3.13dist(pyudev) < 0.25~~ with python3.13dist(pyudev) >= 0.24) (python3.13dist(pyyaml) < 7~~ with python3.13dist(pyyaml) >= 6.0.1) (python3.13dist(redis) < 6~~ with python3.13dist(redis) >= 5.0.4) /usr/bin/python3 coreutils python(abi) python3.13dist(flask) redis util-linux Provides -------- syncstar: python3.13dist(syncstar) python3dist(syncstar) syncstar Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name syncstar --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, R, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
I don't want to block this longer, so I gave +1. Few notes though. - The package fails to build for F39 so when requesting DistGit branches, it is not worth requesting one for F39 - Above the "License: AGPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT" line, please add a comment explaining what files are under which license. For example, take a look how I do it here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pywayland/blob/rawhide/f/python-pywayland.spec . Please do this as soon as possible. - Please add a %check section to run unittests or at least for running %pyproject_check_import. Please see the the same specfile as above for an example ^^
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/syncstar
@jkadlcik, thanks for the approval. - I have requested a repo and an F40 branch (Ref. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/63254 and https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/63255 respectively). - Does this work https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/pull/51/files#diff-a3e8ef9115f3b29e265db8edabd533ffd69d8025ea7933be3fbc57563bd72066R8-R12 or should I make changes to it? - I have added it for now https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/pull/51/files#diff-a3e8ef9115f3b29e265db8edabd533ffd69d8025ea7933be3fbc57563bd72066R44-R45 but cannot confirm if it works yet
> Does this work https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/pull/51/files#diff-a3e8ef9115f3b29e265db8edabd533ffd69d8025ea7933be3fbc57563bd72066R8-R12 or should I make changes to it? This is perfect, thank you > I have added it for now https://github.com/gridhead/syncstar/pull/51/files#diff-a3e8ef9115f3b29e265db8edabd533ffd69d8025ea7933be3fbc57563bd72066R44-R45 but cannot confirm if it works yet Ah, so I took a look and the `test` directory is only in the upstream project on GitHub but the directory is not present in the PyPI tarballs. So you would have to change the Source0 to use a GitHub URL like this https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags Up to you if you want to do that or not. But please add at least the %pyproject_check_import