This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group 8-(

$ fedora-review -n upt
INFO: Processing local files: upt
...
INFO: Build completed
INFO: Installing built package(s)
INFO: Install command returned error code 30

$ more /home/mufti/review-upt/review.txt
...
ERROR: Command failed:
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/mufti/review-upt/resultsupt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- 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.
  Note: License file licenses.cpython-38.opt-1.pyc is not marked as
  %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 x   other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
[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
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.19 starting (python version = 3.7.4)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.19
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.19
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/mufti/review-upt/results/upt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/mufti/review-upt/results/upt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: upt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          upt-0.10.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/upt/upt-0.10.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e08fcea114cf71ed98dd5f9085c40892301b22ebba9448d2940be77737596258
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e08fcea114cf71ed98dd5f9085c40892301b22ebba9448d2940be77737596258


Requires
--------
upt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-spdx-lookup
    python3.8dist(packaging)
    python3.8dist(setuptools)
    python3.8dist(spdx-lookup)



Provides
--------
upt:
    python3.8dist(upt)
    python3dist(upt)
    upt



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n upt
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Perl, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

@J. Scheurich:

(In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #1)
> This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group 8-(
> 
> $ fedora-review -n upt
> INFO: Processing local files: upt
> ...
> INFO: Build completed
> INFO: Installing built package(s)
> INFO: Install command returned error code 30
> 
> $ more /home/mufti/review-upt/review.txt
> ...
> ERROR: Command failed:
>  # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
> --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
> --disableplugin=spacewalk install
> /home/mufti/review-upt/resultsupt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
> --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
> 
> 
Search for errors in root.log to see why the installation has failed (probably missing python-spdx-lookup)

 - This should be marked as okay:

[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should

 - Why did you mark this as Invalid? AFAIK the packager did not include extra license files.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
     provide egg info.


Also I sent you a new mail regarding sponsorship, please reply to it (it may be stuck in SPAM).



(In reply to Jeremy Bertozzi from comment #0)
> Spec URL:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/upt.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/upt-0.10.3-1.
> fc30.src.rpm
> 
> Description: A unified CLI tool that converts a package from a
> language-specific package manager (such as PyPI or NPM) to an almost
> ready-to-use package for Free Unix-based operating systems (such as a
> GNU/Linux distribution or *BSD).
> 
> FAS username: jbertozzi
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for this package, and its dependencies.

Based on J. Scheurich review, I approve this package. You still need to find a sponsor, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

 - Why did you mark this as Invalid? AFAIK the packager did not include extra license files.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.


Sorry, error 8-(

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/upt

FEDORA-2019-18005f0bb6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-18005f0bb6

FEDORA-2019-cdbd2db5f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cdbd2db5f5

upt-0.10.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-18005f0bb6

upt-0.10.3-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cdbd2db5f5

upt-0.10.3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

upt-0.10.3-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

upt-0.10.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e6d3d0229c

upt-0.10.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.