Bug 2014853

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

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

- The license/copyright statements in the code include the “or any later
  version” language, so the License field should be “GPLv3+” instead of
  “GPLv3”.

- Most of the source file headers include:

    # This file incorporates work covered by the following copyright and
    # permission notice (restored, based on setup.py file from
    # https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py):
    #
    #   Copyright (C) 2007-2013 by Michal Migurski and other contributors
    #   License: BSD

  It’s correct to consider these files GPLv3+ under the “effective license”
  concept
  (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F).
  However, the BSD license requires the license and copyright text to be
  reproduced in all derivative works, and that isn’t satisfied here. See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text.

  The original source of the BSD-licensed code is
  https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py/tree/master/ModestMaps. Even there,
  the BSD license is in the metadata (setup.py) but there is no full license
  text/copyright statement.

  This is challenging because there are many different specific licenses in the
  BSD family. Please read
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
  carefully to understand your options.

  You should contact Michael Migurski (https://github.com/migurski) and try to
  get him to commit to a particular BSD license text for
  https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py. Hopefully, he will respond, and you
  can use that as an additional license file for this package, and also submit
  it for inclusion in https://github.com/wrobell/geotiler.

  If all of that fails, the guidelines allow you to choose to guess at the
  proper license text and include that. They do not allow you to package the
  software without the license text for licenses that require it.

  All of this is unpleasant, but seems to be necessary.

- In this case, pyproject-rpm-macros properly marks the COPYING file in
  dist-info as a license file, so you may, if you like, drop

    %license COPYING

  from the base package (not the -doc subpackage). You can verify this with

    rpm -qL -p /path/to/python3-geotiler[…].rpm

  which is a good idea, as there exist some Python packages where this does not
  work. You can also just leave it as it is; there is no harm in having two
  copies of the COPYING file.

- This is unnecessary when using pyproject-rpm-macros:

    rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info

- It’s nice, although not mandatory, to write

    %{python3} -m pytest

  as

    %pytest

  which sets some additional environment variables.

- As far as I can tell, git is not used to apply the patch, and this is not
  needed:

    # For the patch
    BuildRequires:  git-core

- Some difficult issues with minified and bundled JavaScript and web assets in
  Sphinx-generated HTML documentation have been recently pointed out. These
  seem to make Sphinx HTML documentation unsuitable for packaging. See
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and
  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/
  for discussion.

  Your best options are either to build the Sphinx documentation in PDF format
  (which is probably acceptable) instead of HTML, or to drop the documentation
  altogether (a regrettable loss).

  If you want to switch to PDF documentation, the following will work. Change

    #For documentation
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist sphinx}
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme}

  to

    #For documentation
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist sphinx}
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist sphinx-rtd-theme}
    BuildRequires:  python3-sphinx-latex
    BuildRequires:  latexmk
    #For rendered image placeholders
    BuildRequires:  ImageMagick
    BuildRequires:  font(liberationsans)

  and change

    PYTHONPATH=${PWD} sphinx-build-3 doc/ html
    rm -rf docs/_build/html/{.doctrees,.buildinfo} -vf

  to

    # Insert placeholders for documentation sample images that are normally
    # generated by downloading (variously-licensed) data from the Internet in the
    # top-level Makefile.
    convert -size 512x512 xc:gray -font 'Liberation-Sans-Bold-Italic' \
        -pointsize 48 -fill black -gravity center -annotate +0+0 \
        'Rendered image\nnot available' doc/map-osm.png
    cp -p doc/map-osm.png doc/map-stamen-toner.png
    cp -p doc/map-osm.png doc/map-bluemarble.png
    convert -size 1920x1080 xc:gray -font 'Liberation-Sans-Bold-Italic' \
        -pointsize 96 -fill black -gravity center -annotate +0+0 \
        'Rendered image\nnot available' doc/map-path.png
    
    PYTHONPATH="${PWD}" sphinx-build -b latex doc _latex %{?_smp_mflags}
    %make_build -C _latex

  The missing PNGs were a problem with the HTML documentation, but their
  absence actually breaks the PDF build, so we must make placeholders.

  Finally, change

    %doc html

  to

    %doc _latex/geotiler.pdf

- Man pages are always desired for command-line tools
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages).

  If you are willing to maintain them (update them if the command-line options
  change upstream), I am happy to contribute a set of man pages hand-written in
  groff_man(7) format based on the tools’ --help output.

- The tests are disabled in the submitted spec file. Change:

    %pyproject_buildrequires -r

  to

    %pyproject_buildrequires -r %{?with_tests:-x tests}

  and change

    %if %{with tests}
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}
    %endif

  to

    %if %{with tests}
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}
    BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist numpy}
    %endif

  and you should be able to re-enable them.


===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License,
     Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later". 23 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2014853-python-geotiler/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: 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 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.

     BSD license applies to some sources; this requires license text in some
     form.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-geotiler
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: 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
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Tests are disabled, but can be re-enabled. See Issues.

[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
-------
Checking: python3-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-geotiler-doc-0.14.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc36.src.rpm
python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-fetch
python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-lint
python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-route
python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.buildinfo
python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.doctrees
python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-geotiler-doc/html/.doctrees
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




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


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/geotiler/geotiler-0.14.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf


Requires
--------
python3-geotiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(aiohttp)
    python3.10dist(cytoolz)
    python3.10dist(pillow)

python-geotiler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



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

python-geotiler-doc:
    python-geotiler-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2014853
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Perl, C/C++, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Ben, just a quick update. I have already sent an email as well as opened issue in main repository. However, there are no changes. 

Shall we guess a BSD license and proceed with packaging?

(In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #2)
> Ben, just a quick update. I have already sent an email as well as opened
> issue in main repository. However, there are no changes. 
> 
> Shall we guess a BSD license and proceed with packaging?

Yes, I suppose that’s the only path forward unless upstream suddenly decides to respond.

We already have an appropriate copyright statement for modestmaps-py content from the geotiler upstream:

    #   Copyright (C) 2007-2013 by Michal Migurski and other contributors

You can combine this with the text from https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause to produce a BSD license file, which you can install as something like LICENSE-modestmaps-py. You can add a spec file comment like:

# Upstream for modestmaps-py was asked to clarify the exact BSD license
# text via https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py/issues/19 and by direct
# email to Michal Migurski. Since that upstream has remained unresponsive,
# the intended license text is assumed to be the 3-clause BSD license from
# https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause (as the more restrictive of
# the two most common BSD variants, the other being
# https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause).

The effective license for the package overall remains GPLv3.

Thanks Ben. 

I have already prepared a new version of spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-geotiler/main/python-geotiler.spec

Koji build (green lights): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79191696

Thanks. In general, it’s really helpful (and kind of expected) to link an updated SRPM with each updated spec file, so that “fedora-review -b ${BUGZILLA_ID}” works. Otherwise, a reviewer has to hunt for a source RPM in a scratch build, or try to reconstruct it. That’s a little tedious, and it runs the risk that the SRPM as reviewed might have the wrong versions of ancillary files like patches.

I’ll review using:

SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1769/79191769/python-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc36.src.rpm

The package is approved. Please see the Issues section and correct the mixed spaces and tabs before importing.

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

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

===== Issues =====

- The spec file contains mixed spaces and tabs:

    python-geotiler.spec:102: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 102)

  You can correct this with:

    sed -r -i 's/\t/        /g' python-geotiler.spec

- The package does not work when installed in a clean chroot because it cannot
  import “pkg_resources”, which is distributed with setuptools.

  Please file an issue and/or PR with upstream to add setuptools to
  install_requires in setup.cfg, and please patch it in downstream in this
  package as well.

- Man pages for the command-line tools would be welcome:

    python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-fetch
    python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-lint
    python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-route

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

  If you like (that is, if you are willing to keep them up to date), I can submit
  a PR after import adding man pages based on the --help output.

===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright*
     GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General
     Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
     later". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /home/reviewer/2014853-python-geotiler/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: 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:
[x]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-geotiler
[!]: Package functions as described.

     Missing setuptools dependency for pkg_resources

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

     OK under specific procedure allowed by
     https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

[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.
[-]: 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
     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/g/geotiler/geotiler-0.14.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b758539c612aaaee7f674c0d862a6525154ef82154021bc42b444bef2b1ba5bf


Requires
--------
python3-geotiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(aiohttp)
    python3.10dist(cytoolz)
    python3.10dist(pillow)

python-geotiler-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



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

python-geotiler-doc:
    python-geotiler-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2014853
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, fonts, Ocaml, R, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml- The package does not work when installed in a clean chroot because it cannot
  import “pkg_resources”, which is distributed with setuptools.

  Please file an issue and/or PR with upstream to add setuptools to
  install_requires in setup.cfg, and please patch it in downstream in this
  package as well.

    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 3

python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-fetch
python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-lint
python3-geotiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary geotiler-route
python-geotiler.spec:102: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 102)
python-geotiler-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.3 s

Thanks. I will correct all the issues before importing as well as submit a PR to the upstream. In fact, man pages are great idea. Please submit a PR with man pages when imported.

(In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #7)
> Thanks. I will correct all the issues before importing as well as submit a
> PR to the upstream. In fact, man pages are great idea. Please submit a PR
> with man pages when imported.

Great! Could you please take care of the setuptools dependency before approval, and then I can submit man pages after you import the package? Thanks.

SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-geotiler/raw/main/python-geotiler-0.14.5-1.fc33.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-geotiler/main/python-geotiler.spec

Koji build on f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79364315

However, it is failing for now on rawhide due to dependencies: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79364092

Thanks. The package is approved by inspection of the following diffs from the previous submission:

-----

--- ../srpm-unpacked/python-geotiler.spec       2021-11-23 04:26:32.000000000 -0500
+++ ./python-geotiler.spec      2021-11-27 07:40:35.000000000 -0500
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
 License:        GPLv3+
 URL:            https://github.com/wrobell/%{pypi_name}
 Source0:        %{pypi_source}
-Patch0:         0001-Remove-one-dependency.patch
+Patch0:         0001-Change-dependencies.patch
 
 # Upstream for modestmaps-py was asked to clarify the exact BSD license
 # text via https://github.com/stamen/modestmaps-py/issues/19 and by direct

-----

--- ../srpm-unpacked/0001-Remove-one-dependency.patch   2021-10-17 07:26:26.000000000 -0400
+++ ./0001-Change-dependencies.patch    2021-11-27 07:39:22.000000000 -0500
@@ -9,3 +9,14 @@
      "wheel",
  ]
  build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
+diff -urN a/setup.cfg b/setup.cfg
+--- a/setup.cfg        2021-05-28 00:00:17.384008000 +0200
++++ b/setup.cfg        2021-11-27 13:38:48.716481684 +0100
+@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
+       Pillow
+       cytoolz >= 0.8.2
+       aiohttp >= 2.3.5
++      setuptools
+ 
+ [options.extras_require]
+ tests = mypy; pytest-cov; pytest-timeout; pytest-asyncio; uvloop

-----

Please track https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026630 for the dependency issue. A lot of existing packages are broken, too.

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