Bug 2221592

Adding @paul.wouters as a reviewer as agreed with him.

This package is needed as a dependency for updating python-twilio to the latest version.

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

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


python-aiohttp-retry.spec:15: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag noarch / BuildRequires:  gcc

Not sure why the "/ BuildRequires:  gcc" is there? Perhaps a bad copy and paste from a documentation page?

Handling tox-current-env >= 0.0.6 from tox itself
Requirement not satisfied: tox-current-env >= 0.0.6
Exiting dependency generation pass: tox itself

I needed to manually install python3-tox-current-env

The spec file in the srpm should be updated to the one on the rhbz:
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Jul 10 2023 John Doe <packager> - 2.8.3-1
+- Uncommitted changes

python-aiohttp-retry.src: W: strange-permission python-aiohttp-retry.spec 600

Make the spec 0644 :)

With the above issues addressed, the package is approved.


===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2221592-python-aiohttp-
     retry/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
        add python3-tox-current-env  ?
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 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:
[-]: 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.
[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).
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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:
[!]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-aiohttp-retry-2.8.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-aiohttp-retry-2.8.3-1.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/tmp7xowm3vb')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-aiohttp-retry.src: W: strange-permission python-aiohttp-retry.spec 600
python-aiohttp-retry.spec:15: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag noarch / BuildRequires:  gcc
========================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 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/inyutin/aiohttp_retry/archive/v2.8.3/aiohttp_retry-2.8.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 90917b9bd0eb1d343e2cc8fc828df1e92dd58f55bd4fa74edf15b396a26d0a8b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 90917b9bd0eb1d343e2cc8fc828df1e92dd58f55bd4fa74edf15b396a26d0a8b


Requires
--------
python3-aiohttp-retry (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(aiohttp)



Provides
--------
python3-aiohttp-retry:
    python-aiohttp-retry
    python3-aiohttp-retry
    python3.11-aiohttp-retry
    python3.11dist(aiohttp-retry)
    python3dist(aiohttp-retry)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/paul.wouters/2221592-python-aiohttp-retry/srpm/python-aiohttp-retry.spec      2023-07-11 11:16:47.676315116 -0400
+++ /home/paul.wouters/2221592-python-aiohttp-retry/srpm-unpacked/python-aiohttp-retry.spec     2023-07-09 20:00:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,7 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autochangelog
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-aiohttp-retry
 Version:        2.8.3
@@ -54,3 +59,4 @@

 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Jul 10 2023 John Doe <packager> - 2.8.3-1
+- Uncommitted changes


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2221592 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for your review and finding my mistakes!

I have addressed your comments and updated both files.

approved!

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

FEDORA-2023-2e0205a8f8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2e0205a8f8

FEDORA-2023-2e0205a8f8 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-0226beee0b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0226beee0b

FEDORA-2023-05faf11b56 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-05faf11b56

FEDORA-2023-0226beee0b 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-2023-0226beee0b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0226beee0b

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

FEDORA-2023-05faf11b56 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-2023-05faf11b56 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-05faf11b56

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

FEDORA-2023-05faf11b56 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-0226beee0b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.