Bug 1733683 (python-email_validator)

 - Just use:


License:        CC0


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

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



===== 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
     email_validator/review-python-email_validator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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 20480 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[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-email_validator-1.0.4-1.fc31.noarch.rpm
          python-email_validator-1.0.4-1.fc31.src.rpm
python3-email_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deliverability -> deliver ability, deliver-ability, venerability
python3-email_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deliverability -> deliver ability, deliver-ability, venerability
python3-email_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins -> losing, login, loins
python3-email_validator.noarch: W: invalid-license copyright waived
python3-email_validator.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary email_validator
python-email_validator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deliverability -> deliver ability, deliver-ability, venerability
python-email_validator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deliverability -> deliver ability, deliver-ability, venerability
python-email_validator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins -> losing, login, loins
python-email_validator.src: W: invalid-license copyright waived
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Sorry to bypass this request but this is a requirement I need now. See 1787419

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1787419 ***

*** Bug 1787419 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Sorry, I seem to have missed that the review was approved. Package coming up straight away.

@Robert thanks for the speedy review!

Updated package

Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-email_validator.spec
SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/python-email_validator-1.0.5-1.fc31.src.rpm

@Fabian feel free to apply for comaintainership.

LGTM, refreshing the flag because it's older than two months and Gwyn will refuse it.

It seems to be the same package as 1787419 which a different name.

FEDORA-2020-f147077561 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f147077561

FEDORA-2020-256842b4a8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-256842b4a8

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-71cb60255e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-71cb60255e

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-256842b4a8

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-71cb60255e

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f147077561

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-email-validator-1.0.5-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.