https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369375
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- The package is APPROVED, but we missed owning a __pycache__ directory. See below, and please fix it by adding the necessary line to %files when you import the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated The manual dependency on libpeas-loader-python%{_isa} is reasonable since it apparently cannot be generated; I’m assuming that there is an indirect dlopen()/ctypes involved at some point in the chain. The update from 0.8.2 to 0.8.3 didn’t require any packaging changes: https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/compare/0.8.2...0.8.3 Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__/clapper_yt_dlp.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files I don’t understand this. The %files list looks correct, and I don’t see where a duplicate would come from. The duplicate is harmless if it exists, so I suppose we’ll ignore this. - It turns out that the %pycached macro does not own the __pycache__ directory itself, apparently because it was originally intended for listing top-level modules in site-packages, and the Python packages own the site-packages/__pycache__ directories. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_and_bytecode_cache Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__ In this case, it seems you’ll need to add: %dir %{_clapperenhdir}/yt-dlp/__pycache__ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. These are plugins, installed in appropriate locations that are not in the default linker search path. They are correctly shipped in the base package. /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt- dlp/__pycache__ [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/yt-dlp/__pycache__ See Issues. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 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. I’m assuming you have tested this interactively, or will do so. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138570160 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream provides 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) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm clapper-enhancers-0.8.3-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmppsrouu2p')] checks: 32, packages: 2 clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('lbry', '%description -l en_US lbry -> library') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('peertube', '%description -l en_US peertube -> peer tube, peer-tube, perturbed') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.src: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.spec: W: no-%check-section clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: clapper-enhancers-debuginfo-0.8.3-1.fc44.aarch64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpu41_1gms')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 2 clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('odysee', '%description -l en_US odysee -> odyssey') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('yt', '%description -l en_US yt -> YT, yr, y') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: spelling-error ('dlp', '%description -l en_US dlp -> dip, alp, LP') clapper-enhancers.aarch64: W: no-documentation clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/clapper-enhancers/LICENSE clapper-enhancers.aarch64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/lbry/libclapper-lbry.so clapper-enhancers: /usr/lib64/clapper-0.0/enhancers/peertube/libclapper-peertube.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Rafostar/clapper-enhancers/archive/0.8.3/clapper-enhancers-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0687505fc3ff35541503e768124f20766e99d76ffea771211c92d43989c87c54 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0687505fc3ff35541503e768124f20766e99d76ffea771211c92d43989c87c54 Requires -------- clapper-enhancers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libclapper-0.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgstreamer-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libjson-glib-1.0.so.0(libjson-glib-1.0.so.0)(64bit) libpeas-2.so.0()(64bit) libpeas-loader-python(aarch-64) libsoup-3.0.so.0()(64bit) python3dist(yt-dlp) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- clapper-enhancers: clapper-enhancers clapper-enhancers(aarch-64) libclapper-lbry.so()(64bit) libclapper-peertube.so()(64bit) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-10-29 19:43:30.521862094 +0000 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2369375-clapper-enhancers/srpm-unpacked/clapper-enhancers.spec 2025-10-29 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global _clapperenhdir %{_libdir}/clapper-0.0/enhancers @@ -62,3 +72,6 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Oct 29 2025 Dominik Mierzejewski <[email protected]> - 0.8.3-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369375 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2369375 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202369375%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
