Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7057698
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2265851-python-trx-python/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07057698-python-trx-python/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

I have a couple of “non-binding” suggestions, but the one thing I’d really like to see fixed for approval is proper URLs and better attribution and license accounting for the test data.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec.

- You might find it nicer to write

    https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/pull/75.patch

  as

    https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/pull/75.patch

  or

    %{forgeurl}/pull/75.patch

  since it is more succinct and more easily associated with the original
  repository and PR. 

  No change is required.

- If you wanted to make this more concise,

    mkdir tests
    install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} tests
    install -m 644 %{SOURCE2} tests
    install -m 644 %{SOURCE3} tests
    install -m 644 %{SOURCE4} tests

  you could write something like

    install -p -m 644 -D -t tests %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4}

  No change is required.

- Since it’s possible to form URLs for the test sources, it would be better to do so:

    Source1:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624154#/DSI.zip
    Source2:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624148#/memmap_test_data.zip
    Source3:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624151#/trx_from_scratch.zip
    Source4:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/38146098#/gold_standard.zip

  More importantly, we need to audit these files and make sure they are under
  licenses that are allowed for content in Fedora. Something like this seems
  reasonable:

    # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/DSI_zip/21215549
    # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21215549.v1
    # CC-BY-4.0
    Source1:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624154#/DSI.zip
    # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/memmap_test_data_zip/20020460
    # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20020460.v2
    # CC-BY-4.0
    Source2:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624148#/memmap_test_data.zip
    # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/trx_from_scratch_zip/20020412
    # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20020412.v2
    # CC-BY-4.0
    Source3:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624151#/trx_from_scratch.zip
    # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/gold_standard_zip/21520557
    # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21520557.v1
    # CC-BY-4.0
    Source4:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/38146098#/gold_standard.zip

===== 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: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-python/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
     packages

     Diagnostic is spurious (fedora-review bug).

[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1134 bytes in 1 files.
[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?)
[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

===== 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.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[!]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments

     Test data sources should be better-documented; see Issues.

[-]: 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.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-trx-python-0.2.9-2.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-trx-python-0.2.9-2.fc41.src.rpm
=========================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3phrncu8')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-trx-python.src: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python-trx-python.src: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python-trx-python.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/pull/78.patch
python-trx-python.spec: W: invalid-url Source4: gold_standard.zip
python-trx-python.spec: W: invalid-url Source3: trx_from_scratch.zip
python-trx-python.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: memmap_test_data.zip
python-trx-python.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: DSI.zip
===================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 5 warnings, 10 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s =====================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/archive/0.2.9/trx-python-0.2.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 886a69e1f884536a91dd70ac203561e04eb7dcf3e2d83853cd1a24368499615d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 886a69e1f884536a91dd70ac203561e04eb7dcf3e2d83853cd1a24368499615d


Requires
--------
python3-trx-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(deepdiff)
    python3.12dist(nibabel)
    python3.12dist(numpy)



Provides
--------
python3-trx-python:
    python-trx-python
    python3-trx-python
    python3.12-trx-python
    python3.12dist(trx-python)
    python3dist(trx-python)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-python/srpm/python-trx-python.spec	2024-02-26 13:15:08.256839838 -0500
+++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-python/srpm-unpacked/python-trx-python.spec	2024-02-23 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.1)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global pypi_name trx-python
 %global forgeurl https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python
@@ -113,3 +123,9 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sat Feb 24 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.2.9-2
+- Add tests and man pages
+
+* Sat Feb 24 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.2.9-1
+- Initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2265851 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, Java, Haskell, R, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2)
> Issues:
> =======
> - Dist tag is present.
> 
>   OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec.
> 
> - You might find it nicer to write
> 
>    
> https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/pull/75.
> patch
> 
>   as
> 
>     https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/pull/75.patch
> 
>   or
> 
>     %{forgeurl}/pull/75.patch
> 
>   since it is more succinct and more easily associated with the original
>   repository and PR. 

Agreed. I guess I was just being lazy copying and pasting URLs. ;)

> - If you wanted to make this more concise,
> 
>     mkdir tests
>     install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} tests
>     install -m 644 %{SOURCE2} tests
>     install -m 644 %{SOURCE3} tests
>     install -m 644 %{SOURCE4} tests
> 
>   you could write something like
> 
>     install -p -m 644 -D -t tests %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4}
> 
>   No change is required.

I'll keep that in mind. I think the -p flag here should almost be mandatory, according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

> - Since it’s possible to form URLs for the test sources, it would be better
> to do so:
> 
>     Source1:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624154#/DSI.zip
>     Source2:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624148#/memmap_test_data.zip
>     Source3:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624151#/trx_from_scratch.zip
>     Source4:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/38146098#/gold_standard.zip
> 
>   More importantly, we need to audit these files and make sure they are under
>   licenses that are allowed for content in Fedora. Something like this seems
>   reasonable:
> 
>     # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/DSI_zip/21215549
>     # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21215549.v1
>     # CC-BY-4.0
>     Source1:        https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624154#/DSI.zip
>     # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/memmap_test_data_zip/20020460
>     # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20020460.v2
>     # CC-BY-4.0
>     Source2:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624148#/memmap_test_data.zip
>     # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/trx_from_scratch_zip/20020412
>     # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20020412.v2
>     # CC-BY-4.0
>     Source3:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624151#/trx_from_scratch.zip
>     # https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/gold_standard_zip/21520557
>     # https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21520557.v1
>     # CC-BY-4.0
>     Source4:       
> https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/38146098#/gold_standard.zip

Wow! How did you arrive at those URLs? I added the zip archives separately mainly because of those unwieldy URLs. You are right about the license. I slipped on that, thinking they are not part of the install. But, of course, they are part of the SRPM ...

Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trx-python.spec
SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trx-python-0.2.9-3.fc41.src.rpm

Created attachment 2019283 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 7057698 to 7068562

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7068562
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2265851-python-trx-python/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07068562-python-trx-python/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(In reply to Sandro from comment #3)
> 
> > - If you wanted to make this more concise,
> > 
> >     mkdir tests
> >     install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} tests
> >     install -m 644 %{SOURCE2} tests
> >     install -m 644 %{SOURCE3} tests
> >     install -m 644 %{SOURCE4} tests
> > 
> >   you could write something like
> > 
> >     install -p -m 644 -D -t tests %{SOURCE1} %{SOURCE2} %{SOURCE3} %{SOURCE4}
> > 
> >   No change is required.
> 
> I'll keep that in mind. I think the -p flag here should almost be mandatory,
> according to
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

I think always using install -p is a good habit. In this case, I didn’t push for it because these files don’t make it into the binary RPMs, so nobody ever gets to see the timestamps anyway.

> Wow! How did you arrive at those URLs? 

First, I searched for each filename at https://figshare.com to find the dataset it came from, and put the dataset URL in the comment.

Then, I looked for the download link for the dataset and confirmed it matched the URL defined in the package source in trx.fetcher.get_testing_files_dict().

Then, I used the trick described in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_troublesome_urls to make the URLs end with the filenames.

Finally, I clicked “Cite” and copied the DOI URL into the comment too.

You don’t need to add “AND CC-BY-4.0” to the License field, since that is supposed to represent the licenses of the binary RPMs, and none of the test data files contribute to the binary RPMs.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7)
> I think always using install -p is a good habit. In this case, I didn’t push
> for it because these files don’t make it into the binary RPMs, so nobody
> ever gets to see the timestamps anyway.

I agree. Even though it doesn't matter here, I'll try to remember using -p whenever I have to install stuff myself again.

> Then, I used the trick described in
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
> #_troublesome_urls to make the URLs end with the filenames.

That will make it into my cheat sheet. I had a small script prepared already. But with the URL manipulation, that is no longer needed. Thanks for pointing that out.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8)
> You don’t need to add “AND CC-BY-4.0” to the License field, since that is
> supposed to represent the licenses of the binary RPMs, and none of the test
> data files contribute to the binary RPMs.

Right. I can fix that on import. Unless there's something else requiring an updated spec or srpm. I was also wondering if I should upload the test sources to the side cache or carry them in dist-git. Along the same reasoning as the License field, I'm inclined to add them to dist-git. The downside, though, is the size of the files - `trx_from_scratch.zip` is 25M.

(In reply to Sandro from comment #9)
> Right. I can fix that on import. Unless there's something else requiring an
> updated spec or srpm. I was also wondering if I should upload the test
> sources to the side cache or carry them in dist-git. Along the same
> reasoning as the License field, I'm inclined to add them to dist-git. The
> downside, though, is the size of the files - `trx_from_scratch.zip` is 25M.

The test data should definitely go in the lookaside cache.

> 'Pristine' upstream sources (like release tarballs) and other larger source files are stored in the lookaside cache system, not committed directly to git. This provides more efficient storage and transfer of the files.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Maintenance_Guide/#_upload_new_source_files_to_the_lookaside_cache

The package is APPROVED; please remove “AND CC-By-4.0” from License on import.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  OK: fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec.


===== 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: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-
     python/20240228/2265851-python-trx-python/licensecheck.txt

     Please remove “AND CC-BY-4.0” from the License expression, since test data
     files under this license do not contribute to the licenses of the binary
     RPMs.

[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-
     packages

     Diagnostic is spurious (fedora-review bug).

[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1134 bytes in 1 files.
[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?)
[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

===== 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.

     (tests pass)

[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.
[?]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)

     OK: differences are solely due to rpmautospec.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-trx-python-0.2.9-3.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-trx-python-0.2.9-3.fc41.src.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts ==============================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6msapyen')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-trx-python.src: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python-trx-python.src: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python-trx-python.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{forgeurl}/pull/78.patch
========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.4 s =========




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', 'Summary(en_US) tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
python3-trx-python.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tractography', '%description -l en_US tractography -> cryptography, cartography, chromatography')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/38146098#/gold_standard.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 35a0b633560cc2b0d8ecda885aa72d06385499e0cd1ca11a956b0904c3358f01
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35a0b633560cc2b0d8ecda885aa72d06385499e0cd1ca11a956b0904c3358f01
https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624151#/trx_from_scratch.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f98ab6da6a6065527fde4b0b6aa40f07583e925d952182e9bbd0febd55c0f6b2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f98ab6da6a6065527fde4b0b6aa40f07583e925d952182e9bbd0febd55c0f6b2
https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624148#/memmap_test_data.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 98ba89d7a9a7baa2d37956a0a591dce9bb4581bd01296ad5a596706ee90a52ef
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98ba89d7a9a7baa2d37956a0a591dce9bb4581bd01296ad5a596706ee90a52ef
https://figshare.com/ndownloader/files/37624154#/DSI.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 1b09ce8b4b47b2600336c558fdba7051218296e8440e737364f2c4b8ebae666c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b09ce8b4b47b2600336c558fdba7051218296e8440e737364f2c4b8ebae666c
https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python/archive/0.2.9/trx-python-0.2.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 886a69e1f884536a91dd70ac203561e04eb7dcf3e2d83853cd1a24368499615d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 886a69e1f884536a91dd70ac203561e04eb7dcf3e2d83853cd1a24368499615d


Requires
--------
python3-trx-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(deepdiff)
    python3.12dist(nibabel)
    python3.12dist(numpy)



Provides
--------
python3-trx-python:
    python-trx-python
    python3-trx-python
    python3.12-trx-python
    python3.12dist(trx-python)
    python3dist(trx-python)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-python/20240228/2265851-python-trx-python/srpm/python-trx-python.spec	2024-02-28 11:54:08.857617057 -0500
+++ /home/ben/Downloads/review/2265851-python-trx-python/20240228/2265851-python-trx-python/srpm-unpacked/python-trx-python.spec	2024-02-27 19:00:00.000000000 -0500
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.6.1)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 3;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global pypi_name trx-python
 %global forgeurl https://github.com/tee-ar-ex/trx-python
@@ -121,3 +131,17 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Feb 28 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.2.9-3
+- Fix URLs and license ref
+- Use URLs including file name
+- Specify source URL for more information on test data
+- Specify license of test data
+- Use nice(r) URLs for patches
+- Preserve timestamp when installing test files
+
+* Sat Feb 24 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.2.9-2
+- Add tests and man pages
+
+* Sat Feb 24 2024 Sandro <devel> - 0.2.9-1
+- Initial package
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2265851 --mock-options=--dnf
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-trx-python

FEDORA-2024-3128c798e8 (python-trx-python-0.2.9-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3128c798e8

FEDORA-2024-3128c798e8 (python-trx-python-0.2.9-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a (python-dipy-1.8.0-7.fc40 and python-trx-python-0.2.9-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a

FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a

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

FEDORA-2024-3a4fc5082a (python-dipy-1.9.0-4.fc40 and python-trx-python-0.2.9-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca (python-trx-python-0.2.9-3.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca

FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca

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

FEDORA-2024-ee1d5daaca (python-trx-python-0.2.9-3.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.