https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59404511

There was a problem with an import in one file, so I fixed that, pushed it upstream, and rebuilt it 

https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-3.1-2.el8.src.rpm
https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval.spec
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59583892

dependencies:
rt-tests => realtime-tests
probably add stress-ng



########

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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 COPYING is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


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

Generic:
[ ]: 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 General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review-
     rteval/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval,
     /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/__pycache__
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
     packages/rteval/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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:
[!]: 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 2.9 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.9-1.fc33)...
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 package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.9
INFO: Mock Version: 2.9
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/indy/packaging/review/review-rteval/results/rteval-3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/indy/packaging/review/review-rteval/results/rteval-3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: rteval-3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          rteval-3.1-2.fc34.src.rpm
rteval.noarch: E: devel-dependency elfutils-libelf-devel
rteval.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackbench -> backbench, hack bench, hack-bench
rteval.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyclictest -> cyclic test, cyclic-test, bicyclist
rteval.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/misc.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -tt
rteval.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/misc.py
rteval.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackbench -> backbench, hack bench, hack-bench
rteval.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cyclictest -> cyclic test, cyclic-test, bicyclist
rteval.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rteval-3.1.tar.xz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.




Requires
--------
rteval (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    bc
    bison
    bzip2
    config(rteval)
    elfutils
    elfutils-libelf-devel
    flex
    gcc
    kernel-headers
    make
    numactl
    openssl
    openssl-devel
    python(abi)
    python3-dmidecode
    python3-ethtool
    python3-lxml
    python3-schedutils
    rt-tests
    rteval-loads
    sos
    sysstat
    tar
    xz



Provides
--------
rteval:
    config(rteval)
    python3.9dist(rteval)
    python3dist(rteval)
    rteval



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n rteval
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, R, C/C++, PHP, Perl, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

New Build

https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-loads.spec
https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-3.1-3.el8.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60631293

* Wed Jan 27 2021 John Kacur <jkacur> - 3.1-3
- Remove the requirement to install python-schedutils
- add %%pycached to python files to properly handle __pycache__
- remove unncessary %%clean section
- Change requires rt-tests to realtime-tests
- Add a requires for stress-ng
- Use the %%license macro on the COPYING file

(In reply to John Kacur from comment #4)
> New Build
> 
> https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-loads.spec
> https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-3.1-3.el8.src.rpm
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60631293
> 
> * Wed Jan 27 2021 John Kacur <jkacur> - 3.1-3
> - Remove the requirement to install python-schedutils
> - add %%pycached to python files to properly handle __pycache__
> - remove unncessary %%clean section
> - Change requires rt-tests to realtime-tests
> - Add a requires for stress-ng
> - Use the %%license macro on the COPYING file

The above spec file should be this one.

https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval.spec

%changelog
* Thu Jan 28 2021 John Kacur <jkacur> - 3.1-4
- Made some changes to simplify the %%files section considerably
- Added some Requires for building the kernel that were in rteval-loads

https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval.spec
https://jkacur.fedorapeople.org/rteval-3.1-4.el8.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60766365

(In reply to Jiri Kastner from comment #3)


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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
Yes, licensed under GPLv2

[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review-
     rteval/licensecheck.txt

Yes, the license field in the spec file is GPLv2
- TODO item for the future, make sure there is a license tag in every file, but
this should not hold up approval of the package

[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval,
     /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/__pycache__
All owned by rteval

[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
     packages/rteval/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval
correct

[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Correct

[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
yes
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
yes
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
yes
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
not a gui application, so no desktop file necessary

[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
No development files
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
Correct

[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
yes

[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
yes
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
It does not

[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
yes

[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
Not a renmae

[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Yes

[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
Yes

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
Not needed

[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
does not use ExcludeArch, but some work is required to make it run on arches other than x86_64

[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
not applicable
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.

[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
yes
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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

===== 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]",
     "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review-
     rteval/licensecheck.txt

let file bz for fixing fsf address in upstream

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package

rteval has -devel dependencies because kcompile load means kernel compilation

[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 40960 bytes in 3 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[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

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

FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b

FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2

FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-e0309e425b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-d8dc6ed9f2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.