Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/ruyi.git/plain/ruyi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09602784/ruyi-0.40.0-1.src.rpm Description: The package manager for RuyiSDK. Fedora Account System Username: u2fsdgvkx1
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9602814 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399640-ruyi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09602814-ruyi/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.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09602971/ruyi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09602971/ruyi-0.40.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2107658 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9602814 to 9602984
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9602984 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399640-ruyi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09602984-ruyi/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 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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 248 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/ruyi/2399640-ruyi/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 8977 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: [-]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ruyi-0.40.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm ruyi-0.40.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpp34x16in')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ruyisdk/ruyi/releases/download/0.40.0/ruyi-0.40.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9eba2620173fc296c099780870577e3d66d0bd46c4f749374c238b62e95ba719 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9eba2620173fc296c099780870577e3d66d0bd46c4f749374c238b62e95ba719 Requires -------- ruyi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(argcomplete) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(argcomplete) >= 2) (python3.14dist(jinja2) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(jinja2) >= 3) (python3.14dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(requests) >= 2) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(arpy) python3.14dist(fastjsonschema) python3.14dist(packaging) python3.14dist(pygit2) python3.14dist(pyyaml) python3.14dist(rich) python3.14dist(semver) python3.14dist(tomlkit) Provides -------- ruyi: python3.14dist(ruyi) python3dist(ruyi) ruyi Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change Source0: https://github.com/ruyisdk/%{name}/releases/download/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags b) Main concern is telemetry data. Environmental variable is set during the build, but this probably does not persist when the package is installed. Perhaps a configuration file could be made and installed with the package? c) Please update to the latest version
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09637057/ruyi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09637057/ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > 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* Apache License 2.0", > "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 248 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/ruyi/2399640-ruyi/licensecheck.txt > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- > packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [ ]: 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. > [ ]: 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]: 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 8977 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: > [-]: 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. > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: 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]: 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: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: ruyi-0.40.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm > ruyi-0.40.0-1.fc44.src.rpm > ============================ 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 > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpp34x16in')] > checks: 32, packages: 2 > > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 1.0 s > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.7.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 6 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.4 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/ruyisdk/ruyi/releases/download/0.40.0/ruyi-0.40.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 9eba2620173fc296c099780870577e3d66d0bd46c4f749374c238b62e95ba719 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 9eba2620173fc296c099780870577e3d66d0bd46c4f749374c238b62e95ba719 > > > Requires > -------- > ruyi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (python3.14dist(argcomplete) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(argcomplete) >= 2) > (python3.14dist(jinja2) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(jinja2) >= 3) > (python3.14dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(requests) >= 2) > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > python3.14dist(arpy) > python3.14dist(fastjsonschema) > python3.14dist(packaging) > python3.14dist(pygit2) > python3.14dist(pyyaml) > python3.14dist(rich) > python3.14dist(semver) > python3.14dist(tomlkit) > > > > Provides > -------- > ruyi: > python3.14dist(ruyi) > python3dist(ruyi) > ruyi > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399640 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python > Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, R, Haskell, > C/C++ > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH > > Comments: > a) Please change > Source0: > https://github.com/ruyisdk/%{name}/releases/download/%{version}/%{name}- > %{version}.tar.gz > to > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > see: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > #_git_tags > b) Main concern is telemetry data. Environmental variable is set during the > build, but this > probably does not persist when the package is installed. Perhaps a > configuration file could > be made and installed with the package? > c) Please update to the latest version Thank you for your review and suggestions. 1. The Source0 URL has been updated as recommended. 2. The environment variable set during installation is only used to support help2man. the software prompts the user on first launch to choose whether to enable telemetry. Would you recommend disabling telemetry by default? 3. The package has been updated to the latest version. Please let me know if there's anything else I should adjust.
Created attachment 2108242 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9602984 to 9637078
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9637078 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2399640-ruyi/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09637078-ruyi/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.
> > Comments: > > a) Please change > > Source0: > > https://github.com/ruyisdk/%{name}/releases/download/%{version}/%{name}- > > %{version}.tar.gz > > to > > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > see: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > #_git_tags > > b) Main concern is telemetry data. Environmental variable is set during the > > build, but this > > probably does not persist when the package is installed. Perhaps a > > configuration file could > > be made and installed with the package? > > c) Please update to the latest version > > Thank you for your review and suggestions. > > 1. The Source0 URL has been updated as recommended. > Thanks. > 2. The environment variable set during installation is only used to support > help2man. the software prompts the user on first launch to choose whether to > enable telemetry. Would you recommend disabling telemetry by default? > This would be better. Will examine the code again. > 3. The package has been updated to the latest version. > Thanks. > Please let me know if there's anything else I should adjust.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09644116/ruyi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/u2fsdgvkx1/ruyi/srpm-builds/09644116/ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10) > > > Comments: > > > a) Please change > > > Source0: > > > https://github.com/ruyisdk/%{name}/releases/download/%{version}/%{name}- > > > %{version}.tar.gz > > > to > > > Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > > see: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > > #_git_tags > > > b) Main concern is telemetry data. Environmental variable is set during the > > > build, but this > > > probably does not persist when the package is installed. Perhaps a > > > configuration file could > > > be made and installed with the package? > > > c) Please update to the latest version > > > > Thank you for your review and suggestions. > > > > 1. The Source0 URL has been updated as recommended. > > > > Thanks. > > > 2. The environment variable set during installation is only used to support > > help2man. the software prompts the user on first launch to choose whether to > > enable telemetry. Would you recommend disabling telemetry by default? > > > > This would be better. Will examine the code again. > > > 3. The package has been updated to the latest version. > > > > Thanks. > > > Please let me know if there's anything else I should adjust. Thank you for pointing this out. I have updated the package so that telemetry is disabled by default.
[fedora-review-service-build]
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* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 185 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/ruyi/2399640- ruyi/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ruyi [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ruyi, /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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 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 9063 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: [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxmljf0wg')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ruyisdk/ruyi/archive/0.41.0/ruyi-0.41.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 Requires -------- ruyi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(argcomplete) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(argcomplete) >= 2) (python3.14dist(jinja2) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(jinja2) >= 3) (python3.14dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(requests) >= 2) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(arpy) python3.14dist(fastjsonschema) python3.14dist(packaging) python3.14dist(pygit2) python3.14dist(pyyaml) python3.14dist(rich) python3.14dist(semver) python3.14dist(tomlkit) Provides -------- ruyi: python3.14dist(ruyi) python3dist(ruyi) ruyi Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399640 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137796746 b) To ensure directories are owned, please add %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ before %{_datadir}/%{name}/config.toml c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #14) > 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* Apache License 2.0", > "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No > copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 185 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/ruyi/2399640- > ruyi/licensecheck.txt > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ruyi > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ruyi, > /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: 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. > [ ]: 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 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 9063 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: > [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. > Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) > %{?-p:0.}%{lua: > [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. > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm > ruyi-0.41.0-1.fc44.src.rpm > ============================ 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 > rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxmljf0wg')] > checks: 32, packages: 2 > > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.8 s > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.7.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 6 filtered, 0 > badness; has taken 0.5 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/ruyisdk/ruyi/archive/0.41.0/ruyi-0.41.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > f4c5f9ea9fab0819626e90d0c6922613b5593273757c88265c420a54a2a90924 > > > Requires > -------- > ruyi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (python3.14dist(argcomplete) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(argcomplete) >= 2) > (python3.14dist(jinja2) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(jinja2) >= 3) > (python3.14dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(requests) >= 2) > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > python3.14dist(arpy) > python3.14dist(fastjsonschema) > python3.14dist(packaging) > python3.14dist(pygit2) > python3.14dist(pyyaml) > python3.14dist(rich) > python3.14dist(semver) > python3.14dist(tomlkit) > > > > Provides > -------- > ruyi: > python3.14dist(ruyi) > python3dist(ruyi) > ruyi > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399640 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python > Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, > Ocaml > Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH > > Comments: > a) Koji build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137796746 > b) To ensure directories are owned, please add > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/ > before > %{_datadir}/%{name}/config.toml > c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import. Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruyi