Bug 2149430

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94710128

I'm not sure about the naming strategy here. This is a C++ library, but source package name will start with "python-" just because it has python bindings? I would name the package "syndication-domination" to match upstream, and then install a python- subpackage. Even if there's nothing outside that subpackage, that's OK.

Looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming we have a really iffy edge case. "A source package containing primarily a Python library MUST be named with the prefix python-." And currently the python library is all that the package ships. But these are really python bindings for a non-python library. What if syndication-domination chanegs in the future and starts installing a C++ library? Then we have to rename the source package, which is awkward.

Yes, good points. I don't think there is a clear winner here: On one hand it would be nice to match the upstream "syndication-domination" source package name, on the other hand making the source package name wildly different from the binary package can also be confusing (especially when reporting bugs against the package).

I'm really fine either way, so if you strongly prefer "syndication-domination" I'd be happy to use that name.

It fails this rule: "Each Python package MUST include Package Distribution Metadata conforming to PyPA specifications (specifically, Recording installed projects)." And that will transitively cause it to fail the "Machine-readable provides" rule as well. I don't see any other important python-specific problems, although I'm hardly an expert.

There is also a rule that we SHOULD talk to upstream about getting the project name either registered OR blocked on PyPI, to prevent squatting.

(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #4)
> Yes, good points. I don't think there is a clear winner here: On one hand it
> would be nice to match the upstream "syndication-domination" source package
> name, on the other hand making the source package name wildly different from
> the binary package can also be confusing (especially when reporting bugs
> against the package).

Yeah I know. It's your call, but my vote is for "syndication-domination" as it's more future-proof and easier to find the upstream project. But yes, that indeed makes it harder to find the source package from the binary package. There's no winning here. :/

So I see three problems. (a) Missing metadata, per comment #5. (b) Missing provides caused by missing metadata, per comment #5. (c) Also the -debuginfo package is completely missing, which is bad, even though there is a -debugsource package... wtf?


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

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



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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. mcatanzaro: it is
     /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/syndom.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
     which is fine.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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", "GNU Affero General Public License
     v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0". 20
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/mcatanzaro/2149430-python-syndom/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
     Something looks wrong here, there is a -debugsource but no -debuginfo.
     Not sure what's up.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
     Note: see comment #5, above.
[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 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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: see comment #5
[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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
     Note: "every Python package MUST provide python3dist(DISTNAME) and
     python3.Xdist(DISTNAME)," see comment #5
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-syndom
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


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: 2

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



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-syndom: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/syndom.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/gabmus/syndication-domination/-/archive/1.0/syndication-domination-1.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22


Requires
--------
python3-syndom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfmt.so.9()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libpugixml.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtidy.so.58()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-syndom-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-syndom:
    python-syndom
    python3-syndom
    python3-syndom(x86-64)
    python3.11-syndom

python-syndom-debugsource:
    python-syndom-debugsource
    python-syndom-debugsource(x86-64)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/mcatanzaro/2149430-python-syndom/srpm/python-syndom.spec	2022-11-29 15:25:46.327461714 -0600
+++ /home/mcatanzaro/2149430-python-syndom/srpm-unpacked/python-syndom.spec	2022-11-29 15:19:58.000000000 -0600
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-syndom
 Version:        1.0
@@ -53,3 +62,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Tue Nov 29 2022 Kalev Lember <klember> 1.0-1
+- Initial Fedora packaging


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2149430
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

@mcatanza you haven't assigned yourself as reviewer, so you shouldn't be setting the fedora-review? flag. Either make the assignment explicit if you're reviewing this one or drop the flag, please.

I had intended to be the reviewer here.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Hm, this one is waiting on Kalev.

Oh, sorry, this is my bad, I totally forgot to address the concerns here.

(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #6)
> Yeah I know. It's your call, but my vote is for "syndication-domination" as
> it's more future-proof and easier to find the upstream project. But yes,
> that indeed makes it harder to find the source package from the binary
> package. There's no winning here. :/

Sure, let's rename it to "syndication-domination", fine with me.

I guess this somewhat addresses the other concern wrt the Python library metadata as well: If we say it's primarily a C++ library, it makes sense to use the regular, non-Python package naming and also I don't think it then needs to follow other Python conventions, such as being on PyPi and using pyproject.toml for building (the current meson build system certainly doesn't need pyproject.toml and I am not sure it makes sense to add it upstream just for keeping Fedora buildrequires if it's not used for anything else). What do you think?

This review request has taken a while (sorry, totally due to me!) and looks like other distros in the mean time have packaged up this project and have gone with "syndication-domination" source package name as well, e.g. https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/syndication-domination, https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/syndication-domination/

Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/syndication-domination.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/syndication-domination-1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112970702

* Mon Feb 05 2024 Kalev Lember <klember> - 1.0-1
- Rename source package to syndication-domination (rhbz#2149430)

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6986440
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2149430-syndication-domination/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06986440-syndication-domination/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

I really like Fedora Review Service. That is a nice improvement.

I see two problems here:

 * I will contact upstream to request clarification regarding the license. You were right to specify AGPL-3.0-only in the absence of any information stating that a later version may be used, but because this is a strange choice, I wonder if AGPL-3.0-or-later was intended.
 * The -debuginfo subpackage is still missing. Not sure how that could happen. This seems wrong because the package installs a shared object written in C++. I see the -debugsource is generated properly.

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

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



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

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
     mcatanzaro note: this project does not appear to use gnulib at all. Not sure why fedora-review is mentioning this.
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     mcatanzaro note: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/syndom.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so exists, seems fine
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
     mcatanzaro note: So there is a problem here. I think upstream may have
     messed up. It would be unusual to specify AGPL-3.0-only as the license.
     Gabmus might have wanted AGPL-3.0-or-later. I will contact him. This is
     a pass anyway, though, because it's fine for Fedora either way.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
     mcatanzaro note: It uses %autochangelog
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
     mcatanzaro note: -debuginfo is still missing despite the C++ sources.
     Something is wrong.
[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 10373 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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

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

Generic:
[?]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-syndom
     mcatanzaro note: That's OK because there is no other package here
[?]: 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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-syndom-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          syndication-domination-debugsource-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
          syndication-domination-1.0-1.fc40.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/tmpqb08c2gm')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "syndication-domination-debugsource".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-syndom".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 32, packages: 2

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



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-syndom: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/syndom.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/gabmus/syndication-domination/-/archive/1.0/syndication-domination-1.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22


Requires
--------
python3-syndom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libfmt.so.10()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libpugixml.so.1()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.11)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.13)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.2)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    libtidy.so.58()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

syndication-domination-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-syndom:
    python-syndom
    python3-syndom
    python3-syndom(x86-64)
    python3.12-syndom

syndication-domination-debugsource:
    syndication-domination-debugsource
    syndication-domination-debugsource(x86-64)

Reported https://gitlab.com/gabmus/syndication-domination/-/issues/3 to ask about the license

Thanks! What do you mean with the -debuginfo subpackage being missing? I see it's there when I look at the sub-tasks of the koji scratch build I posted (https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/751/112970751/python3-syndom-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm for instance). Is it not generated when you build it locally?

Ah, the problem is I was only looking over the fedora-review output and it doesn't show up there, unlike the other packages. I'll approve this, then.

Excellent, thanks! I'll keep an eye on the licensing ticket you opened and update the license tag for the package if needed.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/syndication-domination

FEDORA-2024-8d74581f93 (syndication-domination-1.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8d74581f93

FEDORA-2024-8d74581f93 (syndication-domination-1.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.