https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438913
Sanqui (David Labský) <dlabsky(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dlabsky(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Sanqui (David Labský) <dlabsky(a)redhat.com> ---
This is an informal review as I am not sponsored yet.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== Primary issues =====
In the package description:
Unevaluated notebooks i.e. notebooks without stored output cells will
be automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.
Personally, I would put commas in this sentence like so:
Unevaluated notebooks, i.e. notebooks without stored output cells,
will be automatically executed during the Sphinx build process.
The description also seems to differ between the linked spec file and the one
in the SRPM, see below.
===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
LICENSE can be found in the source directory.
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Not sure how to test yet
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.6/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/__pycache__,
/usr/lib/python3.6
Package definitely did not create these directories
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
No binary egg present.
[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
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-nbsphinx , python-nbsphinx-doc
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
Python package is noarch.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
There are no tests.
[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)
Please match the spec files. (I think the underscore is an error?)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
python-nbsphinx-doc-0.2.13-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
python-nbsphinx-0.2.13-1.fc27.src.rpm
python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jupyter -> Jupiter,
Junketeer
Name of a program.
python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipynb -> nippy
Name of a file format.
python3-nbsphinx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Unevaluated ->
Evaluated, Valuated, Evaluate
Merely an obscure dictionary word.
python-nbsphinx-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C nbsphinx documentation
Acceptable because the program (extension) is lowercase named.
python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jupyter -> Jupiter,
Junketeer
See above.
python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ipynb -> nippy
See above.
python-nbsphinx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Unevaluated ->
Evaluated, Valuated, Evaluate
See above.
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/sanky/fedora/reviews/review-python-nbsphinx/srpm/python-nbsphinx.spec
2017-04-05 18:11:13.579639768 +0200
+++
/home/sanky/fedora/reviews/review-python-nbsphinx/srpm-unpacked/python-nbsphinx.spec
2017-04-04 20:12:28.000000000 +0200
@@ -25,5 +25,5 @@
%description
-nbsphinx is a Sphinx extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb
+nbsphinx is a Sphinx_ extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb
files. Custom Sphinx directives are used to show Jupyter Notebook code cells
(and of course their results) in both HTML and LaTeX output. Unevaluated
@@ -43,5 +43,5 @@
%description -n python3-%{pypi_name}
-nbsphinx is a Sphinx extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb
+nbsphinx is a Sphinx_ extension that provides a source parser for *.ipynb
files. Custom Sphinx directives are used to show Jupyter Notebook code cells
(and of course their results) in both HTML and LaTeX output. Unevaluated
Requires
--------
python3-nbsphinx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python(abi)
python3-docutils
python3-jinja2
python3-nbconvert
python3-nbformat
python3-sphinx
python3-traitlets
python-nbsphinx-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
python3-nbsphinx:
python3-nbsphinx
python3.6dist(nbsphinx)
python3dist(nbsphinx)
python-nbsphinx-doc:
python-nbsphinx-doc
Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/nbsphinx/nbsphinx-0.2.13...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
20f4bca5f45ffe65fff4d616c2caf365375e8f8768a73d63905bd5d0664176bd
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
20f4bca5f45ffe65fff4d616c2caf365375e8f8768a73d63905bd5d0664176bd
--
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