Bug 2019157
| Summary: | Review Request: python-pyct - Python packaging Common Tasks | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Beasley <code> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, zbyszek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | zbyszek:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-12-02 01:14:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 2018847 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 2022153 | ||
|
Description
Ben Beasley
2021-11-01 17:27:17 UTC
For context, some reverse dependencies: https://www.wheelodex.org/projects/pyct/rdepends/ > License: BSD and (BSD and ISC) You can simplify this to just "BSD". ISC is explicitly the same as BSD but with a few terms removed. So to satisfy both BSD and ISC you need to satisfy exactly BSD. And the License field is the effective license [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F]. > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} Nowadays we mostly write 'python3dist(pytest)'… + package name is OK + latest version + license is acceptable (effectively BSD-3-clause) - license is specified correctly: see above + builds and installs OK + %check is present and passes + BR/R/P look OK rpmlint: python3-pyct.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmd -> cm, cad, cod python3-pyct.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommands -> sub commands, sub-commands, commands Bogus. python3-pyct.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pyct/.version Upstream "design choice" python3-pyct+build.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-pyct+build.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pyct -> pct, pact python3-pyct+build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-pyct+build.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyct -> pct, pact python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pyct -> pct, pact python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cmd -> cm, cad, cod python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmd -> cm, cad, cod python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyct -> pct, pact python-pyct.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmd -> cm, cad, cod python-pyct.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommands -> sub commands, sub-commands, commands I wish rpmlint would be smart enough to filter out the package name from spelling reports, alas. python3-pyct+build.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-pyct+cmd.noarch: W: no-documentation python-pyct.src:55: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(python3dist(clint)) python-pyct.src:130: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. All bogus too. Package is APPROVED. Please fix the License field when importing. Thanks for the review! > Nowadays we mostly write 'python3dist(pytest)'… I do too, although styles vary widely in practice. I’ll change it for consistency with most of my other packages. > You can simplify this to just "BSD". ISC is explicitly the same as BSD but with a few terms removed. So to satisfy both BSD and ISC you need to satisfy exactly BSD. Hmm, interesting. I will correct the License field to the effective license of “BSD” as requested. I will retain the explanatory spec file comment and add a line describing the basis for simplification. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyct FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 FEDORA-2021-852f7cc378 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-852f7cc378 FEDORA-2021-852f7cc378 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-2021-852f7cc378 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-852f7cc378 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-5998cdb069 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2021-852f7cc378 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |