https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290665
Jeremy Cline <jer...@jcline.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jer...@jcline.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |jer...@jcline.org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Cline <jer...@jcline.org> ---
A few nits:
- The URL field could be https instead of http
- I don't think you need the rm -rf $RPM_BUILDROOT
- The changelog entry is for 1.0.0-1, the version in the spec is 1.0.1-1
I'd recommend using %autorelease and %autochangelog, but I'm guessing this is
heading for EPEL repositories and maybe those macros aren't available? Either
way, not deal-breakers.
I think that spelling is fine and clear. It definitely shouldn't be
"integration's".
It does seem the package depends on a deprecated version of sqlalchemy (but
presumably not deprecated in EPEL?). I don't know if you only plan to build
this for EPEL, but I guess you'll need to do some compatibility work if this is
going to be built for Fedora as well. Since that does seem to be a MUST item I
can't approve the package as-is, but that's the only major issue I see.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or
later", "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jcline/reviews/2290665-python-sqlalchemy-
helpers/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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 36465 bytes in 8 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: 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 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]: 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 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:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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:
[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-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
python-sqlalchemy-helpers-1.0.1-1.fc41.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/tmp0i568x4l')]
checks: 32, packages: 2
python-sqlalchemy-helpers.src: E: spelling-error ('integrations', "%description
-l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s")
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations',
"%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration
s")
=========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9
filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s ===========
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ 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
checks: 32, packages: 1
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers.noarch: E: spelling-error ('integrations',
"%description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration
s")
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 1
badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sqlalchemy_helpers/sqlalchemy_helpers-1.0.1.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d1b874b2e22cc7b10bcec030f7b53bf65ccea66f1d4e4dec3f33d8e748298901
Requires
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3.12dist(alembic)
python3.12dist(sqlalchemy)
Provides
--------
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers:
python-sqlalchemy-helpers
python3-sqlalchemy-helpers
python3.12-sqlalchemy-helpers
python3.12dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)
python3dist(sqlalchemy-helpers)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2290665
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity,
Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2290665
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202290665%23c3
--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
