[Bug 2257845] New: Review Request: fedora-distro-aliases - Aliases for active Fedora releases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
Bug ID: 2257845 Summary: Review Request: fedora-distro-aliases - Aliases for active Fedora releases Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jkadlcik@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/fedora-distro-ali... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/fedora-distro-ali... Description: Some projects such as Tito, Packit, Fedora Review Service, etc operate over currently active Fedora releases. They can use this package to find their version numbers instead of manually defining a list.
Fedora Account System Username: frostyx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/rpm-soft | |ware-management/fedora-dist | |ro-aliases Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6881533 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Michel Lind michel@michel-slm.name --- - the Source: line does not match any existing tag - looks like the tag name is a bit odd upstream. This works instead
❯ diff -u *.spec.orig *.spec --- fedora-distro-aliases.spec.orig 2024-01-08 18:00:00.000000000 -0600 +++ fedora-distro-aliases.spec 2024-01-12 10:34:23.203293756 -0600 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
License: GPL-2.0-or-later URL: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/fedora-distro-aliases -Source: %{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Source: %{URL}/archive/%{name}-%{version}-1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: python3-devel
- No need to explicitly declare %license, it's already picked up when packaging already
michel in reviews/fedora-distro-aliases/fedora-rawhide-x86_64 took 3s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯ rpm -qpL ./*.noarch.rpm warning: ./python3-fedora-distro-aliases-1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 5bedb672: NOKEY /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora_distro_aliases-1.0.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-fedora-distro-aliases/LICENSE
michel in reviews/fedora-distro-aliases/fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯ diff -u ./usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora_distro_aliases-1.0.dist-info/LICENSE ./usr/share/licenses/python3-fedora-distro-aliases/LICENSE
michel in reviews/fedora-distro-aliases/fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯
Apart from that it's fine, you can fix this when importing (since you are upstream too, maybe just create a new tag and push it to GitHub, for the first issue?
APPROVED
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9756 bytes in 1 files. [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?) [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
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/rpm-software- management/fedora-distro-aliases/archive/1.0/fedora-distro- aliases-1.0.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-fedora-distro-aliases-1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm fedora-distro-aliases-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_pquqfob')] checks: 31, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-fedora-distro-aliases". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Requires -------- python3-fedora-distro-aliases (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(bodhi-client) python3.12dist(munch)
Provides -------- python3-fedora-distro-aliases: python-fedora-distro-aliases python3-fedora-distro-aliases python3.12-fedora-distro-aliases python3.12dist(fedora-distro-aliases) python3dist(fedora-distro-aliases)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name fedora-distro-aliases --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-distro-aliases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2257845
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for the review Michel.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com