Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 1931477 - Review Request: python-openant - A python library to communicate with ANT-FS compliant devices
Summary: Review Request: python-openant - A python library to communicate with ANT-FS ...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Aniket Pradhan
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: fedora-neuro
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2021-02-22 14:03 UTC by Iztok Fister Jr.
Modified: 2021-03-21 10:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2021-03-21 10:11:03 UTC
Type: ---
aniketpradhan1999: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Iztok Fister Jr. 2021-02-22 14:03:55 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: A python library to download and upload files from ANT-FS 
compliant devices (Garmin products).

Fedora Account System Username: iztokf

Comment 1 Aniket Pradhan 2021-02-26 07:37:05 UTC
Hey Iztok!

* The package looks great! I am sort of confused in this line. Just to double-check, `ant-usb-sticks.rules` is not an executable file, no? Because in that case, I guess the permissions should be 755.

install -m 644 %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}/etc/udev/rules.d/.

* Some directories are not "owned" correctly.

Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev/rules.d, /etc/udev

You can use the %dir macro to own them yourself. Also, it's not necessary to add the dot at the end of line 50/51.

* Everything else looks fine to me. You could probably add some more information about the patch and the other source file so that someone else going through the spec can understand why they are required. 

The automated test is below:


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

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 7 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/udev/rules.d, /etc/udev
[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
[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.
[x]: 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 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[-]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: python3-openant-0.4-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
python3-openant.noarch: W: udev-rule-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/ant-usb-sticks.rules
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
python3-openant.noarch: W: udev-rule-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/ant-usb-sticks.rules
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 344bdf1f1abba2763e912d0e4138994f1476f62961c2988d4cab4a9acdf44b42
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 344bdf1f1abba2763e912d0e4138994f1476f62961c2988d4cab4a9acdf44b42

python3-openant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1931477
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java, PHP, R, fonts


Comment 2 Iztok Fister Jr. 2021-02-26 14:26:19 UTC
Hi Aniket!

Thank you very much for your quick response. Your comments have recently been incorporated in a new version.

Revision is now Online in GH repository.

Actually, I checked some similar packages which are associated with udev files. I followed to the specifications
of aoetools:

Comment 3 Aniket Pradhan 2021-03-02 07:32:36 UTC

Everything seems fine now. Please regenerate the SRPM from the spec file.

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/major/Documents/NeuroFedora/review/python-openant.spec	2021-03-02 12:49:03.800246208 +0530
+++ /home/major/Documents/NeuroFedora/review/review-python-openant/srpm-unpacked/python-openant.spec	2021-02-26 19:15:38.000000000 +0530
@@ -65,6 +65,6 @@
 * Fri Feb 26 2021 Iztok Fister Jr. <iztokf AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.4-1
-- Added comment for patch
-- Fixed Unowned Directories
+- Patch documentation
+- Directories change

Also, please consider these rpmlint warnings:

Checking: python3-openant-0.4-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
python3-openant.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ant-usb-sticks.rules
python-openant.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 28)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Approving the review since these are minor changes.

Comment 4 Tomas Hrcka 2021-03-03 13:11:27 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.