https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2399980
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated I am not sure that building the Sphinx documentation in docbook format is really worthwhile, but it seems that it can be done consistently with packaging guidelines. Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-mock is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecatePythonMock Try this: # Replace PyPI mock with unittest.mock # https://github.com/chapel-lang/sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain/pull/111 Patch: %{url}/pull/111.patch Then you can remove this: BuildRequires: python3dist(mock) - From sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/README.md, ``chapel.py`` is a module that is a local snapshot of the Pygments highlighter that Thomas Van Doren originally developed as a member of the Chapel team and contributed to the Pygments project at https://github.com/pygments/pygments. In November 2020, we decided to bring a copy of it back into our source tree in order to avoid lags in published pygments versions and shorten the time between any improvements to this lexer and seeing their impact on the generated documentation. See https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/14623 for motivation. Changes made to `chapel.py` should be reflected downstream for making the improvements publicly available through Pygments. This is *probably* worth treating as bundling part of Pygments, and adding # chapel.py is vendored from Pygments; see # sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/README.md for justification Provides: bundled(python3dist(pygments)) but it is *certainly* necessary to account for its license: # The entire source is Apache-2.0, except that # sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/README.md is BSD-2-Clause # (sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/LICENSE). License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-CLause This file should also be marked as %license. Now that your PR https://github.com/chapel-lang/sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain/pull/108 was accepted, and upstream is using an SPDX license expression, the same change can be made in the upstream metadata. The chapel.py license file can also be included in the .dist-info metadata by including it in license_files, which will have the leasant side effect of ensuring it is automatically handled and marked as %license in the Fedora package. I suggested these changes upstream in https://github.com/chapel-lang/sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain/pull/112. - Consider packaging README.rst as documentation. - I think that %doc should be added to these: %dir %{_datadir}/help/en %lang(en) %{_datadir}/help/en/python-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2399980-python-sphinxcontrib- chapeldomain/licensecheck.txt Need to account for BSD-2-Clause license of chapel.py. See Issues. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages These are spurious; python3-libs owns these. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages/sphinxcontrib(python3-sphinxcontrib-websupport, python3-sphinxcontrib-qthelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-doxylink, python3-sphinxcontrib-log-cabinet, python3-sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python3-sphinxcontrib-devhelp, python3-sphinx, python3-sphinxcontrib- jquery, python3-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3-sphinxcontrib- spelling, python3-sphinxcontrib-apidoc, python3-sphinxcontrib- htmlhelp, python3-sphinxcontrib-serializinghtml, python3-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain), /usr/share/help/en(python-backcall- doc, python-x3dh-docs, python3-doubleratchet, python3-androguard, novelwriter-doc, python-slixmpp-doc, rauc-doc, thorvg-doc, python- twomemo-docs, profanity-doc, python3-tablib, python3-xeddsa, python3-cobalt, python3-colorspacious, libstrophe-doc) The /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/sphinxcontrib directory corresponds to a Python namespace package, which is an appropriate application for directory co-ownership, especially in a case like this where the co-owners are independent plugins. The directory /usr/share/help/en is also appropriate for co-ownership, although if its use is standardized enough and becomes widespread, it may be a candidate for addition to the filesystem package. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Now that we have https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling, you don’t need an individual FPC exception for bundling, just a set of conditions that need to be satisfied. I think it’s reasonable to treat sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/chapel.py as a case of bundling of (a very small subset of) Pygments. Please consider adding the appropriate virtual Provides and citing sphinxcontrib/chapeldomain/README.md as justification for the bundling. See Issues. [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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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 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]: 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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Spurious diagnostic; makeinfo is not make. [-]: 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. (Tests pass.) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=137601353 [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-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain-0.0.39-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain-0.0.39-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpfdtkgu_p')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/chapel-lang/sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain/archive/0.0.39/sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain-0.0.39.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3910dc816c18fef888bc8242a4f0926d439cf8a6ef438ff2b83425d03bf382e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3910dc816c18fef888bc8242a4f0926d439cf8a6ef438ff2b83425d03bf382e Requires -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(docutils) python3.14dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain: python-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain python3-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain python3.14-sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain python3.14dist(sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain) python3dist(sphinxcontrib-chapeldomain) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2399980 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, PHP, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++ 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=2399980 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202399980%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
