https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2500956
Gonza <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Gonza <[email protected]> --- ============================================================ RPM REVIEW REPORT ============================================================ ### Summary The package `python-tomllint` is a simple TOML linter. The review of the package reveals several issues that need to be addressed before approval. The package fails to meet some of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, including license compliance, directory ownership, and rpmlint warnings. The spec file, while mostly compliant, could be improved in terms of legibility and adherence to best practices. ### MUST-fix issues 1. **License Compliance**: The license field in the spec file does not match the actual license. The licensecheck report indicates that there are files with unknown licenses. This must be corrected to ensure compliance with Fedora's licensing guidelines. 2. **Directory Ownership**: The package does not own all directories it creates. Directories like `/usr/lib/python3.15` and `/usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages` are missing ownership tags. 3. **rpmlint Warnings**: There are rpmlint warnings about missing manual pages and documentation for the binary `tomllint`. These should be addressed to improve package quality. ### SHOULD-fix issues 1. **Spelling Error in Summary**: There is a spelling error in the Summary field in both the spec file and the rpmlint output. The word "linter" is misspelled as "liner," "liter," or "inter" in both the Summary (en_US) fields. 2. **Manual Page**: The package lacks a manual page for the `tomllint` binary. Including a manual page would enhance usability and compliance with Fedora's guidelines. 3. **Documentation**: There is an rpmlint warning about missing documentation. While the package might function without explicit documentation, including it would improve package quality and user experience. ### Guidelines Compliance The package does not fully comply with the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Specifically, issues identified under MUST-fix and SHOULD-fix sections indicate non-compliance. The license compliance, directory ownership, and rpmlint warnings are direct violations of the guidelines. ### Spec File Quality - **Macros Usage**: The spec file uses macros correctly, such as `%pyproject_buildrequires`, `%pyproject_wheel`, `%pyproject_install`, and `%pyproject_save_files`. - **Changelog**: The changelog format is generally correct, although it's automatically generated. - **Descriptions**: The descriptions are present and match the package's functionality. - **Dependencies**: The spec file correctly lists `python3-devel` and `python3-pytest` as build requirements. - **Legibility**: The spec file is legible and written in American English, satisfying the MUST criteria. ### Verdict The package `python-tomllint` is **NEEDS-WORK**. The MUST-fix issues, particularly concerning license compliance, directory ownership, and rpmlint warnings, are critical and must be addressed before the package can be approved. Additionally, the SHOULD-fix items, such as the spelling error and missing documentation, would significantly enhance the package's quality and adherence to Fedora's best practices. Once these issues are resolved, the package should be resubmitted for review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/rpm-reviewer-mrup1mtk/2500956-python-tomllint/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: 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 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 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. [-]: 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-tomllint-0.3.3-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-tomllint-0.3.3-1.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/tmp26j1zkrp')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-tomllint.src: E: spelling-error ('linter', 'Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter') python3-tomllint.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linter', 'Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter') python3-tomllint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomllint python3-tomllint.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 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 python3-tomllint.noarch: E: spelling-error ('linter', 'Summary(en_US) linter -> liner, liter, inter') python3-tomllint.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomllint python3-tomllint.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/tomllint/tomllint-0.3.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9b53d4c9824f47c24fbd12cc693cf4c66a48c2c77bcccc6f1e1766773966e51 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9b53d4c9824f47c24fbd12cc693cf4c66a48c2c77bcccc6f1e1766773966e51 Requires -------- python3-tomllint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-tomllint: python-tomllint python3-tomllint python3.15-tomllint python3.15dist(tomllint) python3dist(tomllint) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /tmp/rpm-reviewer-mrup1mtk/2500956-python-tomllint/srpm/python-tomllint.spec 2026-07-29 17:10:36.903115844 +0200 +++ /tmp/rpm-reviewer-mrup1mtk/2500956-python-tomllint/srpm-unpacked/python-tomllint.spec 2026-07-15 02:00:00.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.4) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-tomllint Version: 0.3.3 @@ -50,3 +60,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Jul 15 2026 John Doe <[email protected]> - 0.3.3-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec -- 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=2500956 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202500956%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
