https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809405
--- Comment #25 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.an...@gmail.com> --- Looks pretty good, but some work to be done yet. I'm afraid we can't modify the tar and then use the modified tar. You'll have to include patches if you need to make changes to the sources. The best thing to do is to open pull requests upstream, and that way you can generate patches using `git format-patches` and include them in the spec using %autosetup: https://rpm.org/user_doc/autosetup.html Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - Consider building the docs? - I see that you've commented saying that the package does not contain tests, but I do see a test directory: could you double check please? ===== 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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 316 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python- sumatra/licensecheck.txt ^ There are fonts in the package, so we'll need to check their licenses and include them too. [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. ^ I see docs are included, so we could consider building and packaging them? [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ^ We can check if it's only an application, in which case we don't need the python- prefix: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ^ Should we move some of the Requires to Suggests, so that advanced users may choose if they want to install all the deps? Pulling in all of django may not be the best thing to do, for example? [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]: 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 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]: 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. [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: [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files ^ This needs to be looked at, probably only need to include their licenses. [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. [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ^ Uh, it requires django < 1.9? The current version of django in Fedora is 3.x? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django Upstream's latest snapshot also seems to require < 2.x: https://github.com/open-research/sumatra/blob/master/setup.py#L30 What do you think we should do here? We could look into updating the software to work with the new django, but I don't know how much work that'll be. [?]: Package functions as described. ^ It cannot currently be installed, so I couldn't test this out. [x]: Latest version is packaged. ^ See the comment above. [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. ^ Worth double checking if the tests are to be run. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint ^ Odd, the build seems to be OK. [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/srpm-unpacked/python-sumatra.spec See: (this test has no URL) ^ Also not sure about this one, the srpm seems python-sumatra too. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.4 starting (python version = 3.8.5)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.4 INFO: Mock Version: 2.4 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/1809405-python-sumatra/results/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt-complete.sh python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb python-sumatra.src: W: file-size-mismatch Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2312319, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2067969 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.githubusercontent.com/open-research/sumatra/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6b342281c947a73dcff47e98c86ff2646d5a0b7e6ebb8c7cf4db489244ef6b04 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d85d788ba9963f3886cb3d20438b16d65e3de3fa5743e4f8f3958f6af728963c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f779912c3cf32405dc027fd5a3abd9d9ddbec0ba147e40dc80d5b80720b3fb11 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- python3-Sumatra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.9dist(django) < 1.9 with python3.9dist(django) >= 1.6) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(django-tagging) python3.9dist(docutils) python3.9dist(future) python3.9dist(httplib2) python3.9dist(jinja2) python3.9dist(parameters) python3dist(django) python3dist(gitpython) python3dist(hgapi) python3dist(mercurial) python3dist(parameters) Provides -------- python3-Sumatra: python-Sumatra python3-Sumatra python3.9-Sumatra python3.9dist(sumatra) python3dist(sumatra) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1809405 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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
