Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-36-x86_64/04500813-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-36-x86_64/04500813-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft-2.27.0-1.fc36.src.rpm

Output of fedora-review

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ufo2ft
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 287 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/python3-ufo2ft/review-python-ufo2ft/
     licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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 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:
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: 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]: 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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/ufo2ft/ufo2ft-2.27.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : af96c4e0cfdb96de532b33f8dcca628f0618ea597769ab2cce61a4b18e564d31
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af96c4e0cfdb96de532b33f8dcca628f0618ea597769ab2cce61a4b18e564d31


Requires
--------
python3-ufo2ft (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(booleanoperations)
    python3.10dist(cffsubr)
    python3.10dist(cu2qu)
    python3.10dist(fonttools)
    python3.10dist(fonttools[ufo])



Provides
--------
python3-ufo2ft:
    python-ufo2ft
    python3-ufo2ft
    python3.10-ufo2ft
    python3.10dist(ufo2ft)
    python3dist(ufo2ft)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-ufo2ft
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, R, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Dependency requirements can be relaxed https://github.com/googlefonts/ufo2ft/issues/618

Currently, the dependency python-cu2qu is FTBFS/FTI due to a Python 3.11 issue. Its upstream is defunct because it was absorbed into fonttools, but ufo2ft upstream wants to keep using the separate cu2qu package for now. Please see the discussing beginning with [1] for further details and links, and consider what you think would be the best approach.

The missing link was:

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2098875#c5

PR to enable Cython acceleration of cu2qu in fonttools: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fonttools/pull-request/7

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-37-x86_64/04773200-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-37-x86_64/04773200-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft-2.28.0-1.fc37.src.rpm

Looks good except that the package needs to be adjusted for
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ufo2ft
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

  OK: review is for unretirement

- Licensing guidelines have been updated recently. New packages may no longer
  use “effective licensing” and must use SPDX in the License field.

  Please change:

    License:        MIT

  to:

    # The entire source is (SPDX) MIT, except:
    #   - Lib/ufo2ft/filters/propagateAnchors.py is Apache-2.0
    License:        MIT AND Apache-2.0

  Note that we can avoid considering the licenses of
  tests/data/UseMyMetrics.ufo/fontinfo.plist and
  tests/data/ContourOrderTest.ufo/fontinfo.plist, except to the extent of
  confirming that they are acceptable in Fedora, because they belong to the
  tests and are not installed, therefore do not contribute to the license of
  the binary RPMs.

- As mentioned in

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

  %pyproject_save_files handles the license file(s) if they are specified in
  the Python wheel metadata. There is some nuance to when this does or doesn’t
  happen, so it’s best to check:

    $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-ufo2ft-2.28.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm 
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ufo2ft-2.28.0.dist-info/LICENSE
    /usr/share/licenses/python3-ufo2ft/LICENSE

  As you can see, in this case, you may (but are not required to) drop the explicit

    %license LICENSE

  since the LICENSE file in the dist-info directory is properly marked.

===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 307 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2091310-python-ufo2ft/licensecheck.txt

     See Issues section.

[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

     (except as mentioned)

[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 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (based on tests passing)

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/ufo2ft/ufo2ft-2.28.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a561ef8c0bc735696626243be49466172ae3627cdb246eccf3f0c6a085a91019
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a561ef8c0bc735696626243be49466172ae3627cdb246eccf3f0c6a085a91019


Requires
--------
python3-ufo2ft (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(booleanoperations)
    python3.11dist(cffsubr)
    python3.11dist(fonttools)
    python3.11dist(fonttools[ufo])



Provides
--------
python3-ufo2ft:
    python-ufo2ft
    python3-ufo2ft
    python3.11-ufo2ft
    python3.11dist(ufo2ft)
    python3dist(ufo2ft)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2091310
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, C/C++, fonts, Java, R, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s

Thanks for the review.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-37-x86_64/04787340-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python3-ufo2ft/fedora-37-x86_64/04787340-python-ufo2ft/python-ufo2ft-2.28.0-2.fc37.src.rpm

related pull request:
https://github.com/googlefonts/ufo2ft/pull/656

Rather than filling out the review template again, I note the following:

- The spec file diff, below, includes all of the changes suggested in the original review and no other changes that could introduce new issues.

--- ../../2091310-python-ufo2ft/srpm-unpacked/python-ufo2ft.spec        2022-08-28 19:46:25.000000000 -0400
> +++ srpm-unpacked/python-ufo2ft.spec    2022-08-30 12:50:53.000000000 -0400
> @@ -5,10 +5,12 @@
>  %forgemeta
>  
>  Name:           python-%{srcname}
> -Release:        1%{?dist}
> +Release:        2%{?dist}
>  Summary:        A bridge from UFOs to FontTool objects
>  
> -License:        MIT
> +# The entire source is (SPDX) MIT, except:
> +#   - Lib/ufo2ft/filters/propagateAnchors.py is Apache-2.0
> +License:        MIT and Apache-2.0
>  URL:            %forgeurl
>  Source0:        %{pypi_source %{srcname}}
>  
> @@ -48,9 +50,6 @@
>  %prep
>  %forgeautosetup -N
>  %patch01 -p1 
> -#pushd Lib
> -#rm -rf *.egg-info
> -#popd
>  
>  %generate_buildrequires
>  %pyproject_buildrequires
> @@ -73,10 +72,12 @@
>  
>  
>  %files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files}
> -%license LICENSE
>  %doc README.rst
>   
>  %changelog
> +* Tue Aug 30 2022 Benson Muite <benson_muite> - 2.28.0-2
> +- Update license information as indicated in review
> +
>  * Sun Aug 28 2022 Benson Muite <benson_muite> - 2.28.0-1
>  - Update version
>  - Add patch to relax dependency requirements

- The only rpmlint messages on the new package are spurious; rpmlint does not yet understand SPDX license identifiers and expressions.

> =============================================== rpmlint session starts ===============================================
> rpmlint: 2.2.0
> configuration:
>     /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
> checks: 32, packages: 2
> 
> python-ufo2ft.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
> python3-ufo2ft.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0
> ================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ================

The package is therefore APPROVED.

Thanks. Repositories requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47465
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47466

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ufo2ft

Update name to match spec so that repository has correct name