https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050281 --- Comment #1 from Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== This looks good but needs a few change Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. -package does not include text of license in its own file rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./python3-pyABF-2.3.5.fc36.noarch.rpm - Changelog-name tag absent ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 629 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ope/contributions/reviews/2050281-python- pyABF/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [?]: 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: 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]: 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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [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: [!]: 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 ------- rpmlint srpm-unpacked/*.spec results/*.rpm rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3 python-pyABF.src: W: strange-permission python-pyABF.spec 600 python-pyABF.src: E: no-changelogname-tag python3-pyABF.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 5.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/swharden/pyABF/archive/2.3.5/python-pyABF-2.3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b0fa94f371acabc435d0dbf6e7ebd96780c532afe8cf7b080fd2d1cffff97c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b0fa94f371acabc435d0dbf6e7ebd96780c532afe8cf7b080fd2d1cffff97c9 Requires -------- python3-pyABF (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(matplotlib) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(pytest) Provides -------- python3-pyABF: python-pyABF python3-pyABF python3.10-pyABF python3.10dist(pyabf) python3dist(pyabf) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ope/contributions/reviews/2050281-python-pyABF/srpm/python-pyABF.spec 2022-02-21 04:12:35.604825840 -0500 +++ /home/ope/contributions/reviews/2050281-python-pyABF/srpm-unpacked/python-pyABF.spec 2022-02-03 10:14:50.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-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*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-pyABF Version: 2.3.5 @@ -50,3 +59,3 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog + Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2050281 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2050281

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050281 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package is now good! XXX APPROVED !! XXX Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 621 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2050281-python- pyABF/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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: 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]: 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. ^ All tests pass [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [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: [!]: 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) ^ This is because we're using rpmautospec, so it's OK. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Ran manually: python-pyABF.spec:68: E: forbidden-controlchar-found %changelog: - added patch 9cd568066b5ff8d6079e2d8cf8af388066cc9b79~ python-pyABF.src: E: forbidden-controlchar-found %changelog : - added patch 9cd568066b5ff8d6079e2d8cf8af388066cc9b79~ python3-pyABF.noarch: E: forbidden-controlchar-found %changelog : - added patch 9cd568066b5ff8d6079e2d8cf8af388066cc9b79~ ^Vanessa, I think it's the `~` that it's complaining about. Not sure if this is a problem as a line in the changelog, but you could reword the commit when you're doing the rebase to import into src.fedoraproject.org to modify the commit message and remove the `~`. (ping me if you're unsure on how to do the rewording) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: ^ meh. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/swharden/pyABF/archive/2.3.6/python-pyABF-2.3.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 662989e7a5bc7f8c3279326fc4bc3efcaabbd92a2f0d857e082064ed0cbdf095 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 662989e7a5bc7f8c3279326fc4bc3efcaabbd92a2f0d857e082064ed0cbdf095 Requires -------- python3-pyABF (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(matplotlib) python3.11dist(numpy) python3.11dist(pytest) Provides -------- python3-pyABF: python-pyABF python3-pyABF python3.11-pyABF python3.11dist(pyabf) python3dist(pyabf) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2050281-python-pyABF/srpm/python-pyABF.spec 2022-08-24 13:06:40.344974840 +0100 +++ /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2050281-python-pyABF/srpm-unpacked/python-pyABF.spec 2022-08-24 12:13:43.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0) +%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-pyABF Version: 2.3.6 @@ -50,3 +59,16 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Wed Aug 24 2022 Vanessa Kris <vanessaigwe1(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.3.6-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Tue Aug 23 2022 Vanessa Kris <vanessaigwe1(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.3.5-4 +- added patch + +* Mon Aug 08 2022 Vanessa Kris <vanessaigwe1(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.3.5-3 +- added patch [200~9cd568066b5ff8d6079e2d8cf8af388066cc9b79~ + +* Wed Mar 02 2022 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.3.5-2 +- f37 build + +* Thu Feb 03 2022 Vanessa_kris <vanessaigwe1(a)gmail.com&gt; 2.3.5-1 +- initial build Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2050281 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Vanessa, please continue from the import (steps here: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/issue/56). When you run `git rebase -i rawhide`, you will see "reword" as an option for the commits---you can use that to remove the `~` symbol from the patch commit which is making rpmlint throw an error. -- 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=2050281