https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 fedepell <fede(a)evolware.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://github.com/fedepell/rpms-specs/blob/master/python/robotframework/... SRPM URL: https://github.com/fedepell/rpms-specs/blob/master/python/robotframework/... Description: Robot Framework is a generic open source automation framework for acceptance testing, acceptance test driven development (ATDD), and robotic process automation (RPA). It has simple plain text syntax and it can be extended easily with libraries implemented using Python or Java.} Fedora Account System Username: fedepell -- 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |jkadlcik(a)redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Hello fedepell, thank you for the package. Overall it looks very good. The links need to point directly to the raw file or file download. In the case of the spec, you want to go to the link you posted, click the "Raw" button, and use that URL. For the SRPM, you want to "Copy link address" for the "Download" button and use that. There are tools that we use for the review, that download those files, so they need direct links. Is there any upstream pull request with this patch? If yes, can you please add a link here as a comment above the patch? Otherwise, can you please submit the PR? Then we will easily know when we can drop the patch from the package. According to the packaging guidelines https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_d... the description lines should be no longer than 80 characters. Can you please re-wrap them? Can you please be more specific, instead of using wildcard here? -- 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 --- Comment #3 from fedepell <fede(a)evolware.org&gt; --- Hello Jakub, Many thanks for reviewing the proposed package! (In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #2) Ok, clear! Updated links (after applying the proposed changes): Spec file URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedepell/rpms-specs/master/python/robot... SRPM URL for FC36: https://github.com/fedepell/rpms-specs/raw/master/python/robotframework/p... Yes, correct it is a patch from upstream. I've added this information inside the patch itself (so short description and link). Most likely indeed (noted also in the patch) it can be removed with next upstream release. Done! Done, adding explicitly the three needed files. Hope it looks in better shape now! :) I've also rerun it via copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedepell/Miscrpms/build/4876539/ Thanks again for the review! Federico -- 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Let's keep it then :-) have it split from remainder of Robot Framework? I think it is not necessary. Let's keep it within the main package. In the future, if there is a need for separating it into a subpackage, it can be done then. This IMHO isn't true. Check this out: [root@14bd960974e7 /]# rpm -ql python3-robotframework |grep htmldata/lib/ /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/robot/htmldata/lib/jquery.highlight.min.js /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/robot/htmldata/lib/jquery.min.js /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/robot/htmldata/lib/jquery.tablesorter.min.js /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/robot/htmldata/lib/jquery.tmpl.min.js /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/robot/htmldata/lib/jsxcompressor.min.js Whatever option you prefer, you will be the one maintaining it :-) Personally, I don't ship HTML docs for my packages. If you decide to ship the HTML documentation, it should IMHO go into a subpackage. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_docume... The raw file ... ;-) -- 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I know what you mean, I have the same issue :-) But the lines you added to the spec look good to me. Perfect! :-) 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "Public domain", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0". 1954 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2087143-python-robotframework/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 51200 bytes in 4 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. [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. [?]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1 python3-robotframework.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/robot/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-robotframework.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/robot/libdoc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-robotframework.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/robot/rebot.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-robotframework.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/robot/run.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-robotframework.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/robot/testdoc.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-robotframework.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libdoc python3-robotframework.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rebot python3-robotframework.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary robot 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/robotframework/robotframework/archive/refs/tags/v5.0.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93a9a7504738d7493994c3a7f4f13b4591beb746a26cb141afdb0435909b9c81 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93a9a7504738d7493994c3a7f4f13b4591beb746a26cb141afdb0435909b9c81 Requires -------- python3-robotframework (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-robotframework: bundled(jquery) bundled(jquery-highlight) bundled(jquery-tablesorter) bundled(jquery-templates) bundled(jsxcompressor) python-robotframework python3-robotframework python3.11-robotframework python3.11dist(robotframework) python3dist(robotframework) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2087143 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Java, R 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=2087143

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087143 Jakub Kadlčík <jkadlcik(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- 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=2087143