Bug 2062999

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83998316

Hello Davide,
thank you for the package.

I tried to install and use it and it works for me.

> Version:        1.3.2

It's confusing but the last version on GitHub is 1.3.2 but on PyPI,
there is 1.3.4 so we should probably package that.

Also, can you please notice the upstream that they forgot to put some 
releases on GitHub?

(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #2)
> > Version:        1.3.2
> 
> It's confusing but the last version on GitHub is 1.3.2 but on PyPI,
> there is 1.3.4 so we should probably package that.
> 
> Also, can you please notice the upstream that they forgot to put some 
> releases on GitHub?

I've filed https://github.com/jkwill87/teletype/issues/4 with upstream to get this clarified.

Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-teletype/python-teletype.spec
SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-teletype/python-teletype-1.3.4-1.fc38.src.rpm

Changelog:
- update to 1.3.4

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5206165
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2062999-python-teletype/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05206165-python-teletype/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

Thank you,



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

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



===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or
     generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-
     teletype/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.
[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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-teletype-1.3.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-teletype-1.3.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnnq8cjab')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/teletype/teletype-1.3.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b81a69338c3d1a532062a2851b0d51723beafa69d4d382b713be230a02bd618a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b81a69338c3d1a532062a2851b0d51723beafa69d4d382b713be230a02bd618a


Requires
--------
python3-teletype (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-teletype:
    python-teletype
    python3-teletype
    python3.11-teletype
    python3.11dist(teletype)
    python3dist(teletype)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-teletype --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks!


$ fedpkg request-repo python-teletype 2062999
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50359
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-teletype f37
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50360
$ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-teletype f36
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50361

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

FEDORA-2023-74ce0854d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-74ce0854d9

FEDORA-2023-74ce0854d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e

FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac

FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e

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

FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac

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

FEDORA-2023-7c3470ef7e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-4eeb05a3ac has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.