https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Bug ID: 2172068 Summary: Review Request: python-tcx2gpx - Convert Garmin TPX to GPX Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-tcx2gp... SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.f... Description: This module converts the Garmin tcx GPS file format to the more commonly used gpx file format. Both formats are a form of XML but there are some fields in the former that are not present in the later. It uses two packages to do the grunt work tcxparser and gpxpy. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gitlab.com/nshephar | |d/tcx2gpx
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5553157 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review? | |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I can’t do the full review right now (I will get to it soon) but here are a couple of things I noticed from just looking at the spec file:
- There is a BuildRequires on pytest-cov. Coverage tools like this should normally be patched out along with linters. You will have to remove the --cov* arguments from addopts in the [tool:pytest] section of setup.cfg for the tests to work without pytest-cov.
- You shouldn’t need an explicit BR on python3dist(setuptools)
- I am not convinced it makes sense to mark test code in %{python3_sitelib} as %doc. Also, given that it looks like these files are apparently installed but not listed in %{pyproject_files}, do you even want to install tests at all, even as a separate subpackage? Or would you rather just remove them from the buildroot?
- In this case, %pyproject_files handles the license file, so you don’t need the explicit %license LICENSE. It’s always good to check this (rpm -qL -p ...) since it doesn’t always happen (depending on the license file name, build backend, and/or various upstream minutia).
I’ll take a closer look as soon as I can.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #3 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks, Ben!
Regarding the tests as a subpackage, I was inspired by the solution you provided for python-sport-activities-features, where you packaged tests as a subpackage.
I also agree that we remove tests. Practically, they may not have any specific role.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #3)
Regarding the tests as a subpackage, I was inspired by the solution you provided for python-sport-activities-features, where you packaged tests as a subpackage.
I suspect I couldn’t figure out how to remove them altogether and cleanly at the time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- I have asked upstream[1] to clarify GPL-3.0-only vs. GPL-3.0-or-later and add license trove classifiers to the metadata.
[1] https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/issues/8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi | |ster.eu)
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
- The License must be SPDX. See https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/issues/8. Given the GPLv3 license file without a separate copyright/permission statement, I think it is appropriate to use GPL-3.0-only for now:
License: GPL-3.0-only
- I see now that the tests are installed directly in %{python3_sitelib}/tests (as opposed to, say %{python3_sitelib}/tcx2gpx/tests). That is an error, and we definitely mustn’t do that. I filed an upstream issue (https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/issues/9) and a PR (https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/merge_requests/19), which we can apply downstream for now:
# Do not install tests in site-packages (fix #9) # https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/merge_requests/19 # Fixes: # Tests are installed directly in site-packages # https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/issues/9 # Rebased on 0.1.4 and to apply to the setup.cfg in the PyPI sdist, which has # different whitespace than the one in git. Patch: 0001-Do-not-install-tests-in-site-packages-fix-9.patch
I will upload the rebased patch file as an attachment to this ticket.
Now we can remove:
# subpackage for tests %package -n python3-%{pypi_name}-tests
Summary: Tests for python3-%{pypi_name}
Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release}
%description -n python3-%{pypi_name}-tests %{summary}.
and
rm -f %{buildroot}/tests
and
%files -n python3-%{pypi_name}-tests %doc %{python3_sitelib}/tests/
- Just like linters, you should patch out coverage analysis dependencies:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters
Remove this:
BuildRequires: python3-pytest-cov
…and update 0001-Remove-linters.patch to remove
--cov tcx2gpx --cov-report term-missing
from addopts in [tool:pytest], and perhaps to remove pytest-cov from the dependencies for the test extra. If you do the latter, you can also drop
%if %{with tests} BuildRequires: python3-pytest %endif
(better written as “BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)” or “BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}”) and do this:
%pyproject_buildrequires %{?with_tests:-x test}
which is nicer anyway.
While you’re at it, patch out “pytest-runner” from setup_requires; it depends on deprecated features of setuptools and only serves to enable “python3 setup.py test” usage.
I will attach a copy of 0001-Remove-linters.patch with the suggested changes.
- As far as I can tell, this is not doing anything useful:
%global fullversion 0.1.4
To simplify the spec file, consider removing that line and replacing
Version: %{?fullversion}
with
Version: 0.1.4
- In my opinion,
%global pypi_name tcx2gpx
is just adding a level of unnecessary indirection, making the spec file less straightforward, without really helping much with re-use across packages. I suggest removing the macro and replacing each occurrence with tcx2gpx.
However, this is a matter of taste, and no change is required.
- Please remove this:
BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)
since the BR will be generated.
- You can remove this:
%license LICENSE
since %{pyproject_files} already handles the license file in the dist-info directory. This is usually the case for setuptools or hatchling build backends, unless upstream has done something exceptionally strange. It’s always best to verify. Here, before removing the explicit “%license LICENSE” line, we see both copies:
$ rpm -qL -p results/python3-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tcx2gpx-0.1.4.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-tcx2gpx/LICENSE
which indicates it’s safe to drop the one in %{_licensedir}.
===== 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". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2172068-python- tcx2gpx/licensecheck.txt
The License must use SPDX notation.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/tests(python3-flatpak-module-tools), /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__(python3-flatpak- module-tools)
See Issues; tests should not be installed directly in site-packages.
[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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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
(except as noted)
[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. [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-tcx2gpx , python3-tcx2gpx-tests [x]: Package functions as described.
(test 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. [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-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python3-tcx2gpx-tests-0.1.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp934kberd')] checks: 31, packages: 3
python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__init__.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__init__.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/conftest.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/conftest.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/test_tcx2gpx.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/test_tcx2gpx.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/conftest.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/test_tcx2gpx.py python(abi) =============== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 2
python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__init__.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__init__.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/conftest.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/conftest.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/test_tcx2gpx.cpython-311.opt-1.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/__pycache__/test_tcx2gpx.cpython-311.pyc python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/conftest.py python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx-tests.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tests/tcx2gpx/test_tcx2gpx.py python(abi) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/tcx2gpx/tcx2gpx-0.1.4.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39ab97b272d36cd005236daf9efc3284c9e5c9d821cd040158eb3465564ff3b8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39ab97b272d36cd005236daf9efc3284c9e5c9d821cd040158eb3465564ff3b8
Requires -------- python3-tcx2gpx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(gpxpy) python3.11dist(python-dateutil) python3.11dist(python-tcxparser)
python3-tcx2gpx-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-tcx2gpx
Provides -------- python3-tcx2gpx: python-tcx2gpx python3-tcx2gpx python3.11-tcx2gpx python3.11dist(tcx2gpx) python3dist(tcx2gpx)
python3-tcx2gpx-tests: python-tcx2gpx-tests python3-tcx2gpx-tests python3.11-tcx2gpx-tests
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2172068 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1945743 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1945743&action=edit Version of linter removal patch implementing review suggestions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #8 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1945744 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1945744&action=edit Patch corresponding to upstream test installation PR, rebased onto the PyPI sdist
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |ster.eu) |in.net)
--- Comment #9 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks, Ben.
Revision files:
SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-tcx2gp... SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.f...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1946143 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1946143&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5553157 to 5563360
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5563360 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) |
--- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thanks! The package is APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2172068-python- tcx2gpx/20230224/2172068-python-tcx2gpx/licensecheck.txt
Please monitor https://gitlab.com/nshephard/tcx2gpx/-/issues/8.
[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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: 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.
$ rpm -qL -p results/python3-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/tcx2gpx-0.1.4.dist-info/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]: 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: [-]: 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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc39.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpdf_8o6yh')] checks: 31, packages: 2
================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/tcx2gpx/tcx2gpx-0.1.4.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39ab97b272d36cd005236daf9efc3284c9e5c9d821cd040158eb3465564ff3b8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39ab97b272d36cd005236daf9efc3284c9e5c9d821cd040158eb3465564ff3b8
Requires -------- python3-tcx2gpx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(gpxpy) python3.11dist(python-dateutil) python3.11dist(python-tcxparser)
Provides -------- python3-tcx2gpx: python-tcx2gpx python3-tcx2gpx python3.11-tcx2gpx python3.11dist(tcx2gpx) python3dist(tcx2gpx)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2172068 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, R, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tcx2gpx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-166850b565 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-166850b565
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-166850b565 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-166850b565
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9beb118000 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9beb118000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9beb118000 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-9beb118000 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9beb118000
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-166850b565 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-166850b565 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-166850b565
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-05 00:53:40
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-166850b565 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-9beb118000 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172068
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-0f4dd26676 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com