https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798944
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Aniket Pradhan from comment #1)
> Just some small nits
>
>
>
> 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
> license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/major/Documents/NeuroFed/reviews/review-python-
> littleutils/licensecheck.txt
> ^ The review tool is also identifying the following files as licenses.
> littleutils-0.2.2/PKG-INFO
> littleutils-0.2.2/littleutils/__init__.py
> littleutils-0.2.2/setup.cfg
> littleutils-0.2.2/setup.py
> I don't see a problem with the spec, so it seems to be fine.
+1, seems to be a false positive:
$ licensecheck -r .
./PKG-INFO: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./setup.cfg: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./setup.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
./littleutils/__init__.py: *No copyright* UNKNOWN
>
> [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
> packages/littleutils(Failed, set, locale,, C, to, defaulting),
> /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/littleutils-0.2.2-py3.8.egg-
> info(Failed, set, locale,, C, to, defaulting),
> /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/littleutils/__pycache__(Failed, set,
> locale,, C, to, defaulting),
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-littleutils(Failed, set, locale,, C, to,
> defaulting)
> ^ Is the review tool having a stroke?
> Anyways, I again don't see a problem with spec, but I guess you can use the
> '-p'
> flag to copy the license.
Added -p, the files/folders are correctly owned from the looks of it.
>
> [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
> [-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [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 0 bytes in 0 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 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]: 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.
> [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
> publishes signatures.
> Note: gpgverify is not used.
> [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
> translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [x]: 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:
> [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-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
> python-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
> python3-littleutils.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> LANGUAGE = (unset),
> LC_ALL = (unset),
> LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
> LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
> are supported and installed on your system.
> perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
> perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> LANGUAGE = (unset),
> LC_ALL = (unset),
> LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
> LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
> are supported and installed on your system.
> perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
> python3-littleutils.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
> https://pypi.org/pypi/littleutils <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service
> not known>
> python3-littleutils.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
>
> ^ Not sure what the perl warnings are about.
> The rpmlint warnings can be ignored, as there is no documentation (neither a
> README) provided for the
> package.
>
That's a locale warning from rpmlint, but it doesn't affect the rpmlint output.
So that's OK.
>
>
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alexmojaki/littleutils/master/LICENSE :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> dfe14f8798c400cbcc85bb4536a686c6fcf3086b3446c3f7c7054a2bcd73ca6a
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> dfe14f8798c400cbcc85bb4536a686c6fcf3086b3446c3f7c7054a2bcd73ca6a
> https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/littleutils/littleutils-0.2.
> 2.tar.gz :
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
> e6cae3a4203e530d51c9667ed310ffe3b1948f2876e3d69605b3de4b7d96916f
> CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> e6cae3a4203e530d51c9667ed310ffe3b1948f2876e3d69605b3de4b7d96916f
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> python3-littleutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> python(abi)
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> python3-littleutils:
> python-littleutils
> python3-littleutils
> python3.8dist(littleutils)
> python3dist(littleutils)
>
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-littleutils
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
> Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, R, fonts, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml,
> Perl
> Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Updated spec:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-littleutils/python-littleutils.spec
Updated srpm:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-littleutils/python-littleutils-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
Cheers,
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
