This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62202842

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/python-backrefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/python-backrefs-5.0.1-2.fc34.src.rpm


Followed the guidelines given in 192990 package review.

Error 404.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-2.fc34.src.rpm

Spec sanity:

> Source0:        https://github.com/facelessuser/backrefs/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

This can be simplified to:

Source0:        https://github.com/facelessuser/backrefs/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Or even:

Source0:        %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz






> Requires:       python3dist(regex)

Why is this needed? I see there is an extra called "extras" that requires regex:

$ pip install 'backrefs[extras]'
Requirement already satisfied: backrefs[extras] in ./__venv_tmp__/lib/python3.9/site-packages (5.0.1)
Collecting regex; extra == "extras"
  Using cached regex-2020.11.13-cp39-cp39-manylinux2014_x86_64.whl (732 kB)
Installing collected packages: regex
Successfully installed regex-2020.11.13


I suggest following this:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_python_extras

i.e. adding:

%{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{pypi_name} -i %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info extras}

Then, the dependent packages can require python3.Xdist(backrefs[extras]) if needed.

Instead now, the package always requires regex and there is no provide for python3.Xdist(backrefs[extras]).





> # Remove bundled egg-info
> rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info

This is not needed, there is no egg-info in the github tarball.

Sorry about 404 error. I realized I have wrong path set for package upload using fedora-create-review.

Fixed this package for above comment suggestions. Below URL's will work fine.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-3.fc34.src.rpm

  - nothing provides python3.Xdist(backrefs[extras]) needed by python3-backrefs-5.0.1-3.fc35.noarch


1) The X was just a placeholder, if you need to require the package, use `Requires: python3-%{pypi_name}+extras = %{version}-%{release}` instead.

2) I don't understand the hard dependency, why is it needed?

It is not needed actually, dropped it now.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-4.fc34.src.rpm

Package looks fine now, but I won't be able to do a full review any time soon, I was hoping to do it today, but I'm too tired. Somebody else can do it or I can get to it some other day. Sorry about that.

Thanks Miro. I will wait if anyone or you to do this package review.

I found an odd license in the tarball. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/DHIXYVPYVUARICEQJJ2VX6IG6QG2PVPD/

The content does not appear to be shipped at runtime, only in the SRPM.

Ben said the license is weird but OK.


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

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

Issues:

1) I would not include the tools/unicodedata/LICENSE file in the package, as the unicodedata are not shipped.
2) I would not include docs/src/markdown/about/license.md either, it is the same as LICENSE.

===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License", "Unicode Terms of Use".
     The unicodedata is not shipped.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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:
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-backrefs-5.0.1-4.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python3-backrefs+extras-5.0.1-4.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-backrefs-5.0.1-4.fc35.src.rpm
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests
python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/facelessuser/backrefs/archive/5.0.1/python-backrefs-5.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7f22495b658f4c3c61a31791d1ae2c0c04a7a6e2a1cb688fc47eb7743d52b043
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f22495b658f4c3c61a31791d1ae2c0c04a7a6e2a1cb688fc47eb7743d52b043


Requires
--------
python3-backrefs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)

python3-backrefs+extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3-backrefs
    python3.9dist(regex)



Provides
--------
python3-backrefs:
    python-backrefs
    python3-backrefs
    python3.9-backrefs
    python3.9dist(backrefs)
    python3dist(backrefs)

python3-backrefs+extras:
    python-backrefs+extras
    python3-backrefs+extras
    python3.9-backrefs+extras
    python3.9dist(backrefs[extras])
    python3dist(backrefs[extras])



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1929991 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, PHP, fonts, R, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank You Miro for checking this package license with Legal team.

I have updated this package to remove unnecessary docs files now.

Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec
SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-5.fc34.src.rpm

APPROVED.

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

Consider adding @python-sig.

Added with "commit" rights.