Bug 2219161

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6134132
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2219161-python-multiecho/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06134132-python-multiecho/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.

Upstream has responded to several PR’s and issues. Rather than carrying a pile of patches, I elected to package a post-release snapshot until a 0.29 release appears.

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230704/python-multiecho.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230704/python-multiecho-0.28^20230704gitb4078f0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Koji scratch builds:

F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102916914
F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102916916
F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102916918

Created attachment 1974016 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6134132 to 6140983

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6140983
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2219161-python-multiecho/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06140983-python-multiecho/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.

LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX

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

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



===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "MIT License",
     "*No copyright* MIT License Apache License", "*No copyright* Apache
     License 2.0". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-reviews/2219161-python-
     multiecho/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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]: 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:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
^
Tests pass

[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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
^
imports checked
[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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-multiecho-0.28^20230704gitb4078f0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-multiecho-0.28^20230704gitb4078f0-1.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/tmpist95vpg')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-multiecho.spec:85: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
python-multiecho.spec:85: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir}
python-multiecho.spec:85: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1}
==================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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://github.com/Donders-Institute/multiecho/archive/b4078f0c3505be692279a6c322d687ed47d1f1bf/multiecho-b4078f0c3505be692279a6c322d687ed47d1f1bf.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3becf6c54d03b1e95e1b36ff5b78952782975b7912dc37992e90b8eb00f40416
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3becf6c54d03b1e95e1b36ff5b78952782975b7912dc37992e90b8eb00f40416


Requires
--------
python3-multiecho (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(coloredlogs)
    python3.11dist(nibabel)
    python3.11dist(numpy)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2219161 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks! That was fast!

Correcting the status to ASSIGNED since the dist-git request automation is picky about that.

I’ll import this once the Python 3.12 side tag merge is complete.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-multiecho

Building for F38/F37. Rawhide will have to wait until python-nibabel builds with Python 3.12.

FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59

FEDORA-2023-266fe74b3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-266fe74b3b

FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59

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

FEDORA-2023-266fe74b3b 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-2023-266fe74b3b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-266fe74b3b

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

FEDORA-2023-266fe74b3b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-0f6002ce59 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.