https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2432499
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== I'm going to repeat most of what Benson said, because I think he is right and those issues really do need to be addressed. - Replace `%global debug_package %{nil}` with `BuildArch: noarch`. See the no-binary warning from rpmlint below. - See the description-line-too-long from rpmlint below. Add newlines to %pkg_description. The %expand macro will preserve those. - We don't want to run code coverage tools in Fedora builds: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters. In this case, it is easy to remove. Just add this (or the patch equivalent) to %prep: sed -i 's/--cov.*//' setup.cfg and remove `BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-cov)` from the spec file. - Please consider verifying source file signatures. As Benson noted, you can do that with: Source0: https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-%{version}.tar.gz Source1: https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-%{version}.tar.gz.asc Source2: https://arthurdejong.org/arthur.asc BuildRequires: gpgverify Then make this the first line of %prep (before %autosetup): %{gpgverify} --data=%{SOURCE0} --signature=%{SOURCE1} --keyring=%{SOURCE2} See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures This also fixes the issue that the current Source0 URL is incorrect. - The License field does not seem to be correct. It should be LGPL-2.1-or-later. Then a few other things from me: - The binary package name should have a `python3-` prefix, rather than `python-`. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming - There is an empty `%install -a` section in the spec file. That should be removed. - I see you are pairing an explicit Release number with %autochangelog. That is likely to lead to trouble down the road. You should use %autorelease as well. - Please consider adding `%doc NEWS README` to %files. - See the incorrect-fsf-address warning from rpmlint below. Please ask upstream to download an updated copy of the LGPL-2.1 license file, which now uses a web address instead of a street address; see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html ===== 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. [!]: 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 Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later and/or GNU Library General Public License v2 or later". 110 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://arthurdejong.org/git/python- pskc/snapshot/python_pskc-1.4.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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn9i4slla')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING python-pskc.src: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices. python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 1 python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- python-pskc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(cryptography) python3.14dist(python-dateutil) Provides -------- python-pskc: python-pskc python-pskc(x86-64) python3.14dist(python-pskc) python3dist(python-pskc) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432499 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Ruby, Java, SugarActivity 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=2432499 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202432499%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
