https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050889
Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lbalhar(a)redhat.com
CC| |lbalhar(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com> ---
Below are a few notes from me. I know that the package is under heavy
development and I don't want to block you so
Package is APPROVED.
Notes from me:
- Could you please add a command you used to generate the manpage to the
comment in the specfile? Or, might this be automated during the build so it's
not an extra manual step during updates?
- You don't need to "cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' .", you can just use
%{SOURCE1} in
%install:
install -t '%{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1' -D -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1}
- Version 0.14.0 is available upstream
- You don't need this line:
%dir %{python3_sitelib}/hatchling-%{version}.dist-info/license_files
the license file stays in the directory and the whole dist-info belongs to the
package.
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", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown
or
generated". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/lbalhar/temp/reviews/2050889-python-
hatchling/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.
[-]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hatchling/hatchling-0.11...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
9ccf90fed7e305d6ac092cd50cda7aa9754d380c426f867fc7312737f8ae0e07
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9ccf90fed7e305d6ac092cd50cda7aa9754d380c426f867fc7312737f8ae0e07
Requires
--------
python3-hatchling (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(python3.10dist(editables) >= 0.2 with python3.10dist(editables) < 1)
(python3.10dist(packaging) >= 21.3 with python3.10dist(packaging) < 22)
(python3.10dist(pathspec) >= 0.9 with python3.10dist(pathspec) < 1)
(python3.10dist(pluggy) >= 1 with python3.10dist(pluggy) < 1.1)
/usr/bin/python3
python(abi)
python3.10dist(tomli)
Provides
--------
python3-hatchling:
python-hatchling
python3-hatchling
python3.10-hatchling
python3.10dist(hatchling)
python3dist(hatchling)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2050889
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml,
C/C++
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=2050889