Bug 1936257

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63299183

Hi
This is un-official review of the package.

1) Better to remove hidden files from RPM, like usort-0.6.3/.github/workflows/build.yml and others. Rpmlint will complain when it will be installable.
2) The package is not installable currently because of:

Error: 
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python3.9dist(stdlib-list) >= 0.7 needed by python3-usort-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages)

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/


===== 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", "Expat License". 24 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/sshnaidm/tmp/1936257-python-usort/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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 2 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 2.9 starting (python version = 3.9.2, NVR = mock-2.9-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.9
INFO: Mock Version: 2.9
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/sshnaidm/tmp/1936257-python-usort/results/python3-usort-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 35 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/sshnaidm/tmp/1936257-python-usort/results/python3-usort-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-usort-0.6.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-usort-0.6.3-1.fc35.src.rpm
python3-usort.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US μsort 
python3-usort.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linters -> liners, liters, inters
python3-usort.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted
python3-usort.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usort
python-usort.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US μsort 
python-usort.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linters -> liners, liters, inters
python-usort.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US formatters -> for matters, for-matters, formatted
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.




Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/usort/usort-0.6.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0af76d0642f97380837fc0626bca94862bfa282a082dfebb5e60d4e91849e0c5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0af76d0642f97380837fc0626bca94862bfa282a082dfebb5e60d4e91849e0c5


Requires
--------
python3-usort (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(libcst)
    python3.9dist(moreorless)
    python3.9dist(setuptools)
    python3.9dist(stdlib-list)
    python3.9dist(toml)



Provides
--------
python3-usort:
    python-usort
    python3-usort
    python3.9-usort
    python3.9dist(usort)
    python3dist(usort)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1936257 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, fonts, Haskell, R, Ocaml, PHP, Java, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks, I've put up https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-stdlib-list/pull-request/2 to get stdlib-list upgraded.

1) Not sure I understand, these files aren't going to be part of the installed package, so they shouldn't matter (and indeed rpmlint doesn't seeem to complain).
2) This should be fixed now that python-stdlib-list has been updated in Rawhide

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-usort/python-usort.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-usort/python-usort-0.6.3-2.fc35.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Build docs

Package approved.

@sshnaidm Do you need help for sponsorship or is @pnemade handling it?

zebob.m,

what happened suddenly?? Will you please explain me. What is blocking you??

I want to keep separate work.

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #6)
> zebob.m,
> 
> what happened suddenly?? Will you please explain me. What is blocking you??

You requested membership for sshnaidm:

Fedora user pnemade <pnemade> has requested
membership for sshnaidm in the packager group and needs a sponsor.

But have not validated it yet. I was wondering if he is needing help with the sponsorship.

I know you continuously watch requests for packager group but I think you should allow me to do my work in my own way. 

I moved one step ahead because I felt sshnaidm has done 1 unofficial package review. When I will see some more activity I was going to sponsor him. I don't understand what is need of you to get him sponsored soon. Let me check if I have been removed from sponsor status...........

hmm good I am still a Sponsor!!!
See
Approved Groups: fedorabugs cla_fedora cla_done @gitinscript2 cvslohit-fonts cla_redhat @gitiok2 svnlohit @gitredhatlsb @svniok @gitwordxtr +packager provenpackager gitfontpackages @gityum-langpacks @svnsystem-config-language @giti18n @gitutrrs-web 

Do you think there is any new process that prevents me from sponsoring sshnaidm? Please guide me further.

That's not what I meant. Anyhow, sorry to have bothered you.

Thanks!

$ fedpkg request-repo python-usort 1936257
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33041

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

FEDORA-2021-447de6e798 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-447de6e798

FEDORA-2021-447de6e798 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-447de6e798 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-447de6e798

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

FEDORA-2021-447de6e798 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7

FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7

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

FEDORA-2021-533a2d1db7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.