Bug 2029682

Should the README.rst also go to the "main" package?

Other than that, spec looks quite good.

> Should the README.rst also go to the "main" package?

It could. I’m not sure that it’s clear what should happen with small text documentation files when there is a -doc subpackage. A lot of packagers seem to leave them in the base package (only). I tend to say “it’s documentation, so it goes in -doc,” but I can see an argument for being able to consult at least the README without installing the full documentation.

-----

- Install README.rst in the base package, too

New spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211207/python-aiosignal.spec
New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211207/python-aiosignal-1.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm

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


Package APPROVED.

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



===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "*No copyright* Apache License".
[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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.



Rpmlint
-------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.1.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /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

python-aiosignal.spec:102: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 


All good.


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/aiosignal/aiosignal-1.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 78ed67db6c7b7ced4f98e495e572106d5c432a93e1ddd1bf475e1dc05f5b7df2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 78ed67db6c7b7ced4f98e495e572106d5c432a93e1ddd1bf475e1dc05f5b7df2


Requires
--------
python3-aiosignal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(frozenlist)

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



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

python-aiosignal-doc:
    python-aiosignal-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2029682 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, Ruby, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks! Repo requested.

Once I’ve built this and python-frozenlist in Rawhide I’ll look at making a PR to fix python-aiohttp.

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

FEDORA-2021-887ee5fec5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-887ee5fec5

FEDORA-2021-887ee5fec5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-e9d0f0986d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e9d0f0986d

FEDORA-2021-e632066549 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e632066549

FEDORA-2021-e9d0f0986d 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-e9d0f0986d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e9d0f0986d

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

FEDORA-2021-e632066549 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-e632066549 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e632066549

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

FEDORA-2021-e632066549 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-e9d0f0986d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.