Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-batchtk/python-batchtk.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-batchtk/python-batchtk-0.0.1c-2.fc42.src.rpm Description: Package for handling custom remote job submissions
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8061883 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2314224-python-batchtk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08061883-python-batchtk/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ 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 first glance at this package. The versioning scheme upstream uses looks problematic and is not PEP 440 compliant. It seems 0.0.1c is meant to be a post release for 0.0.1. That works in RPM versioning, but not in Python versioning were 0.0.1c sorts lower than 0.0.1 and is considered a pre-release on PyPI. Moreover, on PyPI the latest release appears to be 0.0.1rc0 corresponding to the date of tag 0.0.1c on GitHub. I think it's worth a shot talking to upstream to sort this out or at least clarify their intentions.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). => You could use %{py3_dist ...} for both Requires and BuildRequires. I'd also list the BRs in the base package instead of the python3 sub package. [x]: Latest version is packaged. => See remark above # ray is not yet packaged for Fedora: https://pypi.org/project/ray/ %pyproject_check_import -e "*raytk*" => Shouldn't `ray` be packaged? It doesn't look like it's an optional dependency. Seeing that upstream hasn't defined any `install_requires` in pyproject.toml (NumPy and SciPy aren't listed either) makes me think they simply forgot. ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 32338 bytes in 6 files. [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 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) => rpm autospec is being used. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-batchtk-0.0.1c-2.fc42.noarch.rpm python-batchtk-0.0.1c-2.fc42.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/tmpod6lpys_')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ======================================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 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-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, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jchen6727/batchtk/archive/0.0.1c/batchtk-0.0.1c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5942f545e4d470bf557ac707e44762b2500539f7cb3c518ca0f3f58277c9811b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5942f545e4d470bf557ac707e44762b2500539f7cb3c518ca0f3f58277c9811b Requires -------- python3-batchtk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(importlib-metadata) python3dist(numpy) python3dist(scipy) Provides -------- python3-batchtk: python-batchtk python3-batchtk python3.13-batchtk python3.13dist(batchtk) python3dist(batchtk) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/sandro/devel/fedora/reviews/2314224-python-batchtk/srpm/python-batchtk.spec 2024-09-23 18:14:09.416444239 +0200 +++ /home/sandro/devel/fedora/reviews/2314224-python-batchtk/srpm-unpacked/python-batchtk.spec 2024-09-23 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 2; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl https://github.com/jchen6727/batchtk @@ -64,3 +74,9 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Mon Sep 23 2024 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.0.1c-2 +- feat: ready for review + +* Mon Sep 23 2024 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.0.1c-1 +- chore: init +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2314224 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, Perl, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
batchtk seems to have been bundled into netpyne post releasing 1.0.7, so we won't package it now. We'll ignore the failing import for the moment.