Bug 2230002

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

I'll review it.

Few notes:

* Please add "BuildRequires: python3-devel". You may remove "BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros".
* Please consider packaging latest 3.3.0.
* No %check section. Why?

Please address/comment these ones and we'll finish it.

I can't find any issues so here is my formal

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

^^^ See my note above.

===== 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 (BSD-3-clause).
[x]: Package owns all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application).
[-]: No development files.
[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 does not contain systemd file(s).
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 2723 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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).
[?]: I did not test if the package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version should be packaged. Upstream released 3.3.0 but 3.2.1
     is not that old.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not
     publish signatures).
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures.
[!]: %check  notis present. See my note above.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pamqp-3.2.1-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-pamqp-3.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm
========================================================================================================================================= 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpaf4q9kn5')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pamqp.src: E: spelling-error ('unmarshaling', '%description -l en_US unmarshaling -> universalizing')
python3-pamqp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unmarshaling', '%description -l en_US unmarshaling -> universalizing')
==================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.1 s ===================================================================================================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 1

python3-pamqp.noarch: E: spelling-error ('unmarshaling', '%description -l en_US unmarshaling -> universalizing')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/gmr/pamqp/archive/refs/tags/3.2.1.tar.gz#/pamqp-3.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 98b1afe0752fb71850617830df55f5cb9f7fd82ca9e68fcfb837efbc1f036505
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98b1afe0752fb71850617830df55f5cb9f7fd82ca9e68fcfb837efbc1f036505


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



Provides
--------
python3-pamqp:
    python-pamqp
    python3-pamqp
    python3.13-pamqp
    python3.13dist(pamqp)
    python3dist(pamqp)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2230002
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, R, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3)
> Few notes:
> 
> * Please add "BuildRequires: python3-devel".

It is as `pkgconfig(python3)` in `python3...` subpackage.
I prefer to use pkgconfig when it is possible instead of strict package name.

> You may remove "BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros".

Done

> * Please consider packaging latest 3.3.0.

Done.

> * No %check section. Why?

Added

-----------

EL9: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122304811
F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122304952
F41: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122304955
F42: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122304960
SRPM: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pamqp/python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
Old SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pamqp/python-pamqp-3.2.1-1.spec
Actual SPEC: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-pamqp/python-pamqp.spec

Spec diff:
```diff
-- python-pamqp-3.2.1-1.spec   2023-08-08 15:51:41.000000000 +0300
+++ python-pamqp.spec   2024-08-22 14:38:48.218593745 +0300
@@ -1,13 +1,12 @@
 %global module pamqp
 Name:          python-%{module}
-Version:       3.2.1
+Version:       3.3.0
 Release:       1%{?dist}
 License:       BSD-3-Clause
 Summary:       AMQP 0-9-1 library
 URL:           https://github.com/gmr/%{module}
 Source0:       %{url}/archive/refs/tags/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{module}-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildArch:     noarch
-BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros
 
 %description
 pamqp is a low level AMQP 0-9-1 frame encoding and decoding library for Python3.
@@ -20,6 +19,8 @@
 BuildRequires: pkgconfig(python3)
 # python3-wheel
 BuildRequires: %{py3_dist wheel}
+# python3-pytest
+BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest}
 %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{module}}
 
 %description -n python3-%{module}
@@ -43,11 +44,20 @@
 %pyproject_save_files %{module}
 
 
+%check
+%{pytest}
+
+
 %files -n python3-%{module} -f %{pyproject_files}
 %doc README.rst
 %license LICENSE
 
 
 %changelog
+* Thu Aug 22 2024 TI_Eugene <ti.eugene> - 3.3.0-1
+- Version bump
+- BR pyproject-rpm-macros removed
+- Check section added
+
 * Tue Aug 08 2023 TI_Eugene <ti.eugene> - 3.2.1-1
 - Initial packaging
```

Ok, I can't find any other issues so this package is 

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

(took almost a year!)

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

(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5)
> Ok, I can't find any other issues so this package is 
> 
> ================
> === APPROVED ===
> ================

Thank you!

> (took almost a year!)

Like Shoeless Joe )

PS. I'm planning to package python-aiormq on top of this

FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f

FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89 (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3e044c244f (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3e044c244f

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3e044c244f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3e044c244f

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

FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89

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

FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f

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

FEDORA-2024-16ee004d89 (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-4ed343578f (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3e044c244f (python-pamqp-3.3.0-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.