Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-vvm.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-vvm-0.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Vyper version manager. Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121665681
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Source1 is not specified with the downloadable link - quite possibly not needed at all I am missing any explanation why this particular snapshot for conftest.py is used and not the one in the release v0.2.1 (it is present in the github tarball). Actually according the commit it is the very same version. Is this really needed to be tracked separately? If so then I would recommend at least changing it to this to be able to download with "spectool -g": Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vyperlang/vvm/f7b4de84e070062eb4519b2fb5ab0ee8e72269e0/tests/conftest.py#/python-vvm-conftest.py - VCS is not valid link. The git:%{url}.git results in git:https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm.git, which is not a valid link according to git: ``` $ git clone git:https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm.git Cloning into 'vvm'... fatal: protocol 'git:https' is not supported ``` I would recommend in this case just using the https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm instead Reccommendations ================ - Using the macros in the Name/URL flag is decreasing the readibility of the SPEC file and is not even shorter. I would recommend using Name: python-vvm URL: https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm instead of: Name: python-%{pypi_name} URL: https://github.com/vyperlang/%{pypi_name} - Package Description is same as Summary. As a layman in this area I would probably appreciate some longer explanation, like that it is a tooling that it manages/installs the needed versions of vyper - contract-oriented, Pythonic programming language that targets the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [X]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: tried with mock [X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: MIT license, checked with scancode as well, seems to be used consistently across the project [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", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mambroz/wrk/fedora/review/2303776-python- vvm/licensecheck.txt [X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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. [X]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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 1254 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. [-]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-vvm-0.2.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-vvm-0.2.1-1.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/tmpwmwzrc12')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-vvm.src: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', 'Summary(en_US) Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') python-vvm.src: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', '%description -l en_US Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') python3-vvm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', 'Summary(en_US) Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') python3-vvm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', '%description -l en_US Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') ========================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 2.8 s ======================================================== Note: speeling errors are false positive 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 python3-vvm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', 'Summary(en_US) Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') python3-vvm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('Vyper', '%description -l en_US Vyper -> Hyper, Viper, Gypper') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vvm/vvm-0.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b1154b5ac3b1568af60f97c415b73d9e216eee98c0fbbfb646401afe7a9de034 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b1154b5ac3b1568af60f97c415b73d9e216eee98c0fbbfb646401afe7a9de034 Requires -------- python3-vvm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(requests) >= 2.19) python(abi) python3.13dist(packaging) Provides -------- python3-vvm: python-vvm python3-vvm python3.13-vvm python3.13dist(vvm) python3dist(vvm) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2303776 --cache --no-build Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Michal Ambroz from comment #1) Thanks! > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Source1 is not specified with the downloadable link - quite possibly not > needed at all > I am missing any explanation why this particular snapshot for conftest.py is > used and not the one in the release v0.2.1 (it is present in the github > tarball). > Actually according the commit it is the very same version. Is this really > needed to be tracked separately? > If so then I would recommend at least changing it to this to be able to > download with "spectool -g": > Source1: > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/vyperlang/vvm/ > f7b4de84e070062eb4519b2fb5ab0ee8e72269e0/tests/conftest.py#/python-vvm- > conftest.py I've simplified things by switching to a GitHub tarball. > - VCS is not valid link. > The git:%{url}.git results in git:https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm.git, > which is not a valid link according to git: > > ``` > $ git clone git:https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm.git > Cloning into 'vvm'... > fatal: protocol 'git:https' is not supported > ``` > > I would recommend in this case just using the > https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm instead I believe it should kept as is. According to "RPM tags": ``` Format <vcs>:<address> with <vcs> being the VCS command used (e.g. git, svn, hg, …) and <address> being the location of the repository as used by the VCS tool to clone/checkout the repository (e.g. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm.git). ``` https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/tags.html > Reccommendations > ================ > - Using the macros in the Name/URL flag is decreasing the readibility of the > SPEC file and is not even shorter. > I would recommend using > Name: python-vvm > URL: https://github.com/vyperlang/vvm > instead of: > Name: python-%{pypi_name} > URL: https://github.com/vyperlang/%{pypi_name} I believe you're right. I've fixed that and going to fix other my packages in the meantime. > - Package Description is same as Summary. > As a layman in this area I would probably appreciate some longer > explanation, like that it is a tooling > that it manages/installs the needed versions of vyper - contract-oriented, > Pythonic programming language > that targets the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Improved description a bit. A new package but the same links: Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-vvm.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-vvm-0.2.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121949070
> I believe it should kept as is. According to "RPM tags": you are right ... seems I will have to change that in my rpms Patch1 would deserve some comment that it is Fedora-related, possibly comment about being reported to upstream. Otherwise I believe the package is good to go. Review +
(In reply to Michal Ambroz from comment #3) > > I believe it should kept as is. According to "RPM tags": > you are right ... seems I will have to change that in my rpms > > Patch1 would deserve some comment that it is Fedora-related, possibly > comment about being reported to upstream. > > Otherwise I believe the package is good to go. > Review + Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-vvm
FEDORA-2024-da2a14066d (python-vvm-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-da2a14066d
FEDORA-2024-da2a14066d 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-da2a14066d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-da2a14066d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-9698090164 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-2024-9698090164 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9698090164 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-9698090164 (python-vvm-0.2.1-1.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-da2a14066d (python-vvm-0.2.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.