https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.s | |e Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.s | |e --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.se&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= Quoting: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildr... "Every package that uses Python (at runtime and/or build time) and/or installs Python modules MUST explicitly include BuildRequires: python3-devel in its .spec file, even if Python is not actually invoked during build time." Replace BuildRequires: python3 With BuildRequires: python3-devel Quoting: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_depend... "Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) with the unversioned prefix python- if the corresponding python3- dependency can be used instead." Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. Remove: BuildRequires: python-rpm-macros With the earlier change (build requiring python3-devel instead of python3) the macro package is installed as a dependency: $ rpm -q --requires python3-devel | grep macros (pyproject-rpm-macros if rpm-build) (python-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build) (python3-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build) Quoting: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_depend... "Packages SHOULD NOT have explicit dependencies (either build-time or runtime) with a minor-version prefix such as python3.8- or python3.8dist(. Such dependencies SHOULD instead be automatically generated or a macro should be used to get the version." Replace: Requires: python36-m2crypto Requires: python36-requests With: Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-m2crypto Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-requests ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ellert/Packaging/review/review-fts-rest-client/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/fts3 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/fts3 Add %dir %{_sysconfdir}/fts3 to %files [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. rpmlint compains that the Obsolete is unversioned. Consider making it versioned [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. See comment above about hardcoded python versions [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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments The way the source is described as being the result of a git checkout described in a comment does follow the guidelines. [-]: 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. In recent python versions the setuptools module is not installed by default, and must be explicitly build required if used during the build. This does not harm older releases, so does not have to be conditionalized. Add: BuildRequires: python3-setuptools [-]: %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]: 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 ------- $ rpmlint ./fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.fc38.src.rpm warning: line 19: It's not recommended to have unversioned Obsoletes: Obsoletes: fts-rest-cli warning: line 19: It's not recommended to have unversioned Obsoletes: Obsoletes: fts-rest-cli ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ 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: 1 fts-rest-client.spec:19: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes fts-rest-cli fts-rest-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fts-rest-client-3.12.0.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s $ rpmlint ./fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ 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: 1 fts-rest-client.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided fts-rest-cli fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-ban fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delegate fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delete-submit fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-server-status fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-cancel fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-list fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-status fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-submit fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-whoami fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- fts-rest-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(fts-rest-client) python3 python3-m2crypto python3-requests Provides -------- fts-rest-client: config(fts-rest-client) fts-rest-client Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L m2 -n fts-rest-client Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, R, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/ellert/Packaging/review/m2/python3-m2crypto-0.38.0-7.fc38.x86_64.rpm The python3-m2crypto was just recently rebuilt in rawhide with python 3.11. This version was not yet available in the package repositories. The version in the repository was built agains python 3.10 and not installable. In order to be able to perform the review I downloaded the latest version from koji and used it as a local dependency. The review was made with a minimal set of changes to the specfile to make the package build and install on rawhide: diff orig/fts-rest-client.spec fts-rest-client.spec 12a13 16,17c17,18 < Requires: python36-m2crypto < Requires: python36-requests --- -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.se&gt; --- 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ellert/Packaging/review-2/review-fts-rest- client/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. [x]: 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. Rawhide and EPEL 7 checked. [-]: %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]: 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 ------- $ rpmlint fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ 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: 1 fts-rest-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: fts-rest-client-3.12.0.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s $ rpmlint fts-rest-client-3.12.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ 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: 1 fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-ban fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delegate fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-delete-submit fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-server-status fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-cancel fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-list fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-status fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-transfer-submit fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fts-rest-whoami fts-rest-client.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Requires -------- fts-rest-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(fts-rest-client) python(abi) python3 python3-m2crypto python3-requests python3.11dist(m2crypto) python3.11dist(requests) python3.11dist(setuptools) Provides -------- fts-rest-client: config(fts-rest-client) fts-rest-cli fts-rest-client python-fts python3.11dist(fts3) python3dist(fts3) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n fts-rest-client Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Approved. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert(a)physics.uu.se&gt; --- A small comment on your branch requests: Rawhide is f38 now. You need to request a f37 branch too. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-d726822d08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d726822d08 -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-b57304128b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b57304128b -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #12 from Mihai Patrascoiu <mihai.patrascoiu(a)cern.ch&gt; --- Hello Mattias, Thank you for the review and indications! The package has been submitted to fedora-testing. Ticket should be closed when it hits stable. Cheers, Mihai -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-b57304128b 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-2022-b57304128b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b57304128b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-fe8a4ed8ee has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-fe8a4ed8ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3817cede8e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3817cede8e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3817cede8e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c30176f464 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-3817cede8e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2111607

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111607 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-d726822d08 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=2111607