https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2501291
Gonza <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Gonza <[email protected]> --- ============================================================ RPM REVIEW REPORT ============================================================ ### Summary The package under review is `python-rfc3987-syntax2`, a Python module for validating strings according to RFC 3987. The package builds successfully and passes rpmlint checks without any issues. However, there are a few areas that need attention, primarily related to licensing and directory ownership. ### MUST-fix issues 1. **License Field Mismatch**: The spec file states the license as MIT, but the licensecheck report indicates unknown licenses for 13 files. This discrepancy needs to be resolved by ensuring that the license field accurately reflects the actual licenses of all files in the package. 2. **Directory Ownership**: The package creates directories `/usr/lib/python3.15` and `/usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages` without claiming ownership. According to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, a package must own all directories it creates. This issue needs to be addressed by adding these directories to the `%files` section with the correct ownership. ### SHOULD-fix issues 1. **Final Provides and Requires**: Although not explicitly mentioned in the review output, it's good practice to review the final provides and requires to ensure they are sane and do not cause unintended dependency issues. 2. **Testing on Multiple Architectures**: While the package builds successfully on at least one primary architecture, it should also be tested on other supported architectures to ensure compatibility. 3. **Python Eggs**: The package does not address Python egg-related guidelines, such as not downloading dependencies during the build process or providing egg info if used by another package via an egg interface. ### Guidelines compliance The package largely adheres to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, with the main exceptions being the license field mismatch and the lack of directory ownership claims. ### Spec file quality - **Directory Ownership**: The spec file does not currently claim ownership of directories created during installation. ### Verdict **NEEDS-WORK**: The package requires attention to resolve the licensing discrepancy and directory ownership issues before it can be approved. Once these points are addressed, the package should be resubmitted for review. ---------------------------------------- fedora-review Output ---------------------------------------- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/rpm-reviewer-en7x7pnw/2501291-python- rfc3987-syntax2/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15, /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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 [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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]: 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 7381 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: 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]: 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: [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-rfc3987-syntax2-1.1.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-rfc3987-syntax2-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp1w87lru9')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jkowalleck/rfc3987-syntax2/archive/v1.1.1/rfc3987-syntax2-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 192e2c28fa95ab413eb44ac2203d29ac2d4e57d0aa83a1af14cf3de82c1bc334 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 192e2c28fa95ab413eb44ac2203d29ac2d4e57d0aa83a1af14cf3de82c1bc334 Requires -------- python3-rfc3987-syntax2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.15dist(lark) Provides -------- python3-rfc3987-syntax2: python-rfc3987-syntax2 python3-rfc3987-syntax2 python3.15-rfc3987-syntax2 python3.15dist(rfc3987-syntax2) python3dist(rfc3987-syntax2) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2501291 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202501291%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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
