Bug 2223081
| Summary: | Review Request: python-pyasyncore - Python module asyncore for Python 3.12 onwards | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Terje Røsten <terje.rosten> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | awilliam, fedora, package-review, praiskup, troy | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| URL: | https://github.com/simonrob/pyasyncore | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2023-12-17 21:19:40 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 2219556 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Terje Røsten
2023-07-15 09:47:02 UTC
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6174936 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223081-python-pyasyncore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06174936-python-pyasyncore/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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. spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-pyasyncore/python-pyasyncore.spec srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/python-pyasyncore/python-pyasyncore-1.0.2-2.fc39.src.rpm Created attachment 1975911 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6174936 to 6174982
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6174982 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223081-python-pyasyncore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06174982-python-pyasyncore/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. [fedora-review-service-build] Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6233580 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223081-python-pyasyncore/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06233580-python-pyasyncore/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. Don't you want to start with the `pyp2spec pyasyncore` template, according to the latest Python guidelines? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ Also the license field should use the SPDX format: PSF-2.0 The package is available now: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-pyasyncore/python3-pyasyncore/ Does this mean that this bug can be closed? Closed as dup of #2241084. I guess Adam forgot to search current package reviews. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2241084 *** Sorry, I thought I did but I guess not! |