https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718685
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |zebo...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
- The current source is 404? Pypi doesn't seem to provide the archive.
The requested URL returned error: 404
Use:
Source0: %url/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Please use a more detailed Summary/Description: what is SmartyPants, what
does it do
- The license shorthand should be
License: BSD
- You should use the GitHub archive to run the tests
%check
%{__python3} setup.py test
- Remove shebang of Python scripts in %prep (including the tests files which
fails otherwise)
python3-smartypants.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/smartypants.py 644 /usr/bin/python
for lib in $(find -type f -name '*.py'); do
sed '1{\@^#!@d}' $lib > $lib.new &&
touch -r $lib $lib.new &&
mv $lib.new $lib
done
sed 's|#!/usr/bin/env python|#!/usr/bin/python3|' smartypants > smartypants.new
&&
touch -r smartypants smartypants.new &&
mv smartypants.new smartypants
chmod +x smartypants
- Capitalize summary:
python-smartypants-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C smartypants
documentation
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (unspecified)". 26 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-smartypants/review-python-
smartypants/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-smartypants
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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-smartypants-2.0.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
python-smartypants-doc-2.0.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
python-smartypants-2.0.1-1.fc31.src.rpm
python3-smartypants.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD License
python3-smartypants.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/smartypants.py 644 /usr/bin/python
python3-smartypants.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smartypants
python-smartypants-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C smartypants
documentation
python-smartypants-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD License
python-smartypants-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/python-smartypants-doc/html/objects.inv
python-smartypants.src: W: invalid-license BSD License
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
--
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
