Bug 2235057 (python-commoncode)

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345537
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235057-python-commoncode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345537-python-commoncode/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.

I will take this review.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- The file src/commoncode/dict_utils.py is licensed with Python-2.0, and has
  a corresponding documentation file (dict_utils.ABOUT) and license file
  (python.LICENSE) in the same directory.  This should be reflected in the
  License field at least, and possibly in %doc and %license as well.

- Similarly, src/commoncode/fileutils.py contains functions licensed with
  Python-2.0, and has a corresponding documentation file (fileutils.py.ABOUT)
  and license file (python.LICENSE) in the same directory.

- As an addendum, note that dict_utils.ABOUT, fileutils.py.ABOUT, and
  python.LICENSE are currently installed in %{python3_sitelib}, but shouldn't
  be if they are marked as %doc or %license.

- The file src/commoncode/functional.py contains a function `flatten` whose
  docstring includes this:

    Originally derived from http://www.andreasen.org/misc/util.py
    2002-2005 by Erwin S. Andreasen -- http://www.andreasen.org/misc.shtml
    This file is in the Public Domain
    Version: Id: util.py,v 1.22 2005/12/16 00:08:21 erwin Exp erwin

  That should also be mentioned in the License field.

- Note the rpmlint summary-too-long error.  Perhaps it could be shortened to:

  Functions for handling paths, dates, files and hashes

- Note that version 31.0.3 has been released.  (That's a SHOULD, not a MUST,
  so I won't insist that you update.)

- Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires.  This package does not
  test with tox.

- The problem with the Chinese test is that it is running in an ASCII
  environment.  Add this to the top of %check and the test passes:

  export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8

- I question the value of including CODE_OF_CONDUCT.rst as %doc.  It's a
  fairly standard and widely available document, and is of more interest to
  contributors to the project than to users of it.

===== 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.
[!]: 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", "*No copyright*
     Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD
     2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views
     sentence", "Python License 2.0", "Public domain Apache License 2.0",
     "Common Public License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 2.1", "zlib License", "Apache License 1.1", "*No copyright*
     Common Public License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later", "GNU General Public License", "Boost Software License 1.0",
     "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "NTP License". 203 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jamesjer/2235057-python-commoncode/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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 13231 bytes in 4 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]: 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

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[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-commoncode-31.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-commoncode-doc-31.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-commoncode-31.0.2-1.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/tmpstbth0k9')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

python-commoncode.src: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes
python3-commoncode.noarch: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes
================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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: 31, packages: 2

python3-commoncode.noarch: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nexB/commoncode/archive/v31.0.2/commoncode-31.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8509e7e3774fbbb9dc512b9e912e54f4f5c582e380c54b128a4d435e085e4d34
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8509e7e3774fbbb9dc512b9e912e54f4f5c582e380c54b128a4d435e085e4d34


Requires
--------
python3-commoncode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ((python3.12dist(attrs) < 20.1 or python3.12dist(attrs) > 20.1) with python3.12dist(attrs) >= 18.1)
    ((python3.12dist(click) < 7 or python3.12dist(click) > 7) with python3.12dist(click) >= 6.7)
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(beautifulsoup4)
    python3.12dist(requests)
    python3.12dist(saneyaml)
    python3.12dist(text-unidecode)

python-commoncode-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-commoncode:
    python-commoncode
    python3-commoncode
    python3.12-commoncode
    python3.12dist(commoncode)
    python3dist(commoncode)

python-commoncode-doc:
    python-commoncode-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235057 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you fro your review:

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode-31.0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6528080
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235057-python-commoncode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06528080-python-commoncode/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.

Looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

Thank you for the review Jerry!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57421

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

FEDORA-2023-6362595946 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6362595946

FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7

FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 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-dbed56f9f7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7

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

FEDORA-2023-6362595946 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-2023-6362595946 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6362595946

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

FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3

FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 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-2023-4f6c8a8da3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3

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

FEDORA-2023-6362595946 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.