Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-piper-tts.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-piper-tts-1.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10452597 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476902-python-piper-tts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10452597-python-piper-tts/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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'll review it
Looks good enough to me. I see only these issues: * The file `./src/piper/tashkeel/LICENSE` should be marked as %license. A minor issue - please address it before uploading. * You explicitly disabled debuginfo generation. Why? The package does have a binary so-library. Here is my formal 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 ^^^ See my note above. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so exists but they aren't intended for *-devel subpackage. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file - not a GUI application. [-]: No separate development files required. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [!]: No useful -debuginfo package. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 2710 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. [-]: A package is not used by another package via an egg interface. [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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.4.2). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-piper-tts-1.4.2-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm python-piper-tts-1.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpp01gj9vh')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-piper-tts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary piper 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ^^^ This one is survivable. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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 python3-piper-tts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary piper 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-piper-tts: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/piper/espeakbridge.so Source checksums ---------------- http://github.com/OHF-voice/piper1-gpl/archive/refs/tags/v1.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8a9c5a1d9e09b899ad87a8033de5909c174ff5faae93c9cf32c696d890e60d12 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8a9c5a1d9e09b899ad87a8033de5909c174ff5faae93c9cf32c696d890e60d12 Requires -------- python3-piper-tts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(onnxruntime) < 2~~ with python3.14dist(onnxruntime) >= 1) (python3.14dist(pathvalidate) < 4~~ with python3.14dist(pathvalidate) >= 3) /usr/bin/python3 libc.so.6()(64bit) libespeak-ng.so.1()(64bit) libpython3.14.so.1.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-piper-tts: python-piper-tts python3-piper-tts python3-piper-tts(x86-64) python3.14-piper-tts python3.14dist(piper-tts) python3dist(piper-tts) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2476902 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, Java, R, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Please comment two issues I've found (at least the one with debuginfo and I'll continue.
> Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz This should be "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/piper1-gpl-%{version}.tar.gz > # No debug package > %global debug_package %{nil} Why? This sounds like our compiler flags aren't propagating properly... > %description > %{summary} This needs a trailing period. > %autosetup -p1 -n piper1-gpl-%{version} FYI, you can simplify this to "%autosetup -C -p1" > %{python3_sitearch}/piper_tts-%{version}.dist-info Please add a trailing slash here, so RPM knows that it should always be a directory.
Spec URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-piper-tts.spec SRPM URL: https://trix.fedorapeople.org/python-piper-tts-1.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm >> Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz > This should be "%{url}/archive/v%{version}/piper1-gpl-%{version}.tar.gz Done. >> # No debug package >> %global debug_package %{nil} > Why? This sounds like our compiler flags aren't propagating properly... Needed more configury. In pyproject.toml, [tool.scikit-build] wheel.packages = ["src/piper"] build.verbose = true cmake.build-type = "RelWithDebInfo" install.strip = false logging.level = "INFO" I believe the install.strip = false, is what was need, RelWithDebInfo I already had the first time. >> %description >> %{summary} > This needs a trailing period. Done >> %autosetup -p1 -n piper1-gpl-%{version} > FYI, you can simplify this to "%autosetup -C -p1" Leaving as-is. >> %{python3_sitearch}/piper_tts-%{version}.dist-info > Please add a trailing slash here, so RPM knows that it should always be a directory. done, and in the piper dir
Created attachment 2141123 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10452597 to 10457081
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10457081 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2476902-python-piper-tts/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10457081-python-piper-tts/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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 got it this app is not the perfect one but I do not see any other blocking issues. So this package is ================ === Approved === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-piper-tts Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
Addressed with python-piper-tts-1.4.2-2.fc45