Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08671918-python-datanommer-commands/datanommer-commands.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08671918-python-datanommer-commands/python-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.src.rpm Description: Console commands for datanommer Fedora Account System Username: zlopez I would like to unretire datanommer-commands and as it's retired for more than 8 weeks I'm opening this review request with it.
Why do you use `%pyproject_buildrequires -t` when you are not using %tox?
Is there a reason to hardcode the source URL instead of using %{pypi_source datanommer_commands}? Why there is %modname defined to datanommer_commands when the "module name" is in fact datanommer.commands an this macro is only used in %prep to name a directory? Woudl you consider not defining this macro for a single usage?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Why do you use `%pyproject_buildrequires -t` when you are not using %tox? Probably copied from another spec file for different python package. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > Is there a reason to hardcode the source URL instead of using %{pypi_source > datanommer_commands}? > > Why there is %modname defined to datanommer_commands when the "module name" > is in fact datanommer.commands an this macro is only used in %prep to name a > directory? Woudl you consider not defining this macro for a single usage? I tried to use %{pypi_source datanommer_commands}, but it failed with 404. Let me try it again. I will probably change the macro, as it isn't really used with the datanommer-commands, datanommer.commands and datanommer_commands mess. I will update the spec file according to your comments.
This new spec file should address the all the comments. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675824-python-datanommer-commands/datanommer-commands.spec
Could we get this over the finish line?
Could this review be finished?
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675824-python-datanommer-commands/datanommer-commands.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08675824-python-datanommer-commands/python-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.src.rpm
It does not seem to build. fedora-messaging requirement not satisfied. [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8900371 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346613-datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08900371-python-datanommer-commands/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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 tried another build in my COPR project and it was successful https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/zlopez/datanommer-commands/build/8900613/. The reason is that this has https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346614 as one of the dependencies, which I would like to unretire together with this one.
Can do a local build, but having the dependency available in rawhide after filing an unretirement ticket does make testing easier.
The unretirement ticket is here https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12597, but it's for both packages.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-datanommer- commands/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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 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 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 392 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: 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-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.noarch.rpm python-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpp4gqaa2t')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-create-db python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-dump python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-extract-users python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-latest python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-stats 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 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 "python3-datanommer-commands". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/datanommer_commands/datanommer_commands-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6258d6e15fe4116a5e467cdaf7d6715b4962afda5e3b6cd8c0e64278f6e2e74c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6258d6e15fe4116a5e467cdaf7d6715b4962afda5e3b6cd8c0e64278f6e2e74c Requires -------- python3-datanommer-commands (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(datanommer-models) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(datanommer-models) >= 1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging) Provides -------- python3-datanommer-commands: python-datanommer-commands python3-datanommer-commands python3.13-datanommer-commands python3.13dist(datanommer-commands) python3dist(datanommer-commands) 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-datanommer-commands --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider enabling fedora-review in your copr repository see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-datanomer-models/build/8904845/ b) Please name the spec file with the full name python-datanommer-commands or change spec file contents Name: python-datanommer-commands to Name: datanommer-commands c) Consider using help2man or click-man to generate manpages for the binaries https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/help2man/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-click-man/ d) Did a local mock build e) Explicitly mark the license field, change %doc README.* to %doc README.* %doc NEWS.* %license LICENSE and %pyproject_save_files datanommer to %pyproject_save_files -L datanommer
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08906292-python-datanommer-commands/python-datanommer-commands.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/zlopez/datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08906292-python-datanommer-commands/python-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.src.rpm I addressed almost all the comments: a) Enabled b) Renamed to python-datanommer-commands c) This needs to be done upstream or is there a way to do it during build? e) NEWS.* doesn't exist in package, so I just added the license and changed %pyproject_save_files
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8906309 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346613-datanommer-commands/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08906309-python-datanommer-commands/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
help2man can be used during the build to generate man pages but it is in no way required or mandatory
As Fedora is not a minimal passing quality distribution: a) Check with upstream on click-man, this would probably be the most efficient longterm b) For help2man, one can add a bootstrap parameter to the build: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping https://omairmajid.com/posts/2021-04-09-bootstrapping-.net-on-fedora/ Initially, manpage will not be built, once the package has been built in a sidetag, require it and run help2man to generate the manpage. Partial attempt at: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-apkinspector/blob/rawhide/f/python-apkinspector.spec Though still need to do sidetag builds correctly
I will look at the help2man today.
help2man does not require bootstrapping, you can use e.g. something like this to run the command for it in %install: %py3_test_envvars %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/datanommer-create-db --help That said, the quality of help2man man pages varies, and I would not tie the presence of such man pages to not being "minimal passing quality distribution". Missing manpages should not block this package review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/datanommer-commands/review-python- datanommer-commands/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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages/datanommer(python3-datanommer-models) [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: 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 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 392 bytes in 1 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: [-]: 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]: 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.noarch.rpm python-datanommer-commands-1.3.0-0.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdd1tlhw2')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-create-db python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-dump python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-extract-users python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-latest python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-stats 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-create-db python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-dump python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-extract-users python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-latest python3-datanommer-commands.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datanommer-stats 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/datanommer_commands/datanommer_commands-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6258d6e15fe4116a5e467cdaf7d6715b4962afda5e3b6cd8c0e64278f6e2e74c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6258d6e15fe4116a5e467cdaf7d6715b4962afda5e3b6cd8c0e64278f6e2e74c Requires -------- python3-datanommer-commands (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(datanommer-models) < 2~~ with python3.13dist(datanommer-models) >= 1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging) Provides -------- python3-datanommer-commands: python-datanommer-commands python3-datanommer-commands python3.13-datanommer-commands python3.13dist(datanommer-commands) python3dist(datanommer-commands) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/datanommer-commands/python-datanommer-commands.spec 2025-04-14 16:20:33.000000000 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/datanommer-commands/review-python-datanommer-commands/srpm-unpacked/python-datanommer-commands.spec 2025-04-15 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -40,5 +40,5 @@ %install %pyproject_install -%pyproject_save_files datanommer +%pyproject_save_files -L datanommer @@ -51,4 +51,5 @@ %files -n python3-datanommer-commands -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.* +%license LICENSE %{_bindir}/datanommer-create-db %{_bindir}/datanommer-dump Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-datanommer-commands -m benson-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, R, Java, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Man pages would be nice, but not blocking. b) Approved.
Thanks, I got sidetracked by other things and didn't get to look at the help2man.