Bug 2273017

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179600
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273017-python-sphinx-multiversion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179600-python-sphinx-multiversion/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.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8188751
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273017-python-sphinx-multiversion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08188751-python-sphinx-multiversion/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Initial comments:
a) Is it possible to use the newer python packaging guidelines?
b) The sources from GitHub have tests, not a must to run them, but maybe helpful.
c) License should be BSD-2-Clause

a. done.
b. Looks like they're not in the release tarball, but I left the check bits commented in case that changes.
c. fixed.

SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-sphinx-multiversion/python-sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4-2.fc42.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-sphinx-multiversion/python-sphinx-multiversion.spec

Created attachment 2054414 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8188751 to 8191223

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8191223
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273017-python-sphinx-multiversion/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08191223-python-sphinx-multiversion/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.

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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-sphinx-multiversion/2273017-
     python-sphinx-multiversion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
[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]: 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 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 427 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]: 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.
[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.
[!]: %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-sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4-2.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4-2.fc42.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/tmpde9vaxbs')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-sphinx-multiversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sphinx-multiversion
====== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.2 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-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-sphinx-multiversion.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sphinx-multiversion
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/multiversion/releases/download/v0.2.4/sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c22abc33160c8ff63b95bca6df7bffea6c418decfa0456b9645e2e93b8b8a99a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c22abc33160c8ff63b95bca6df7bffea6c418decfa0456b9645e2e93b8b8a99a


Requires
--------
python3-sphinx-multiversion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(sphinx)
    python3dist(setuptools)
    python3dist(sphinx)



Provides
--------
python3-sphinx-multiversion:
    python-sphinx-multiversion
    python3-sphinx-multiversion
    python3.13-sphinx-multiversion
    python3.13dist(sphinx-multiversion)
    python3dist(sphinx-multiversion)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2273017
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Perl, C/C++, PHP, Haskell, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Raised issue about packaging license file in releases:
https://github.com/sphinx-contrib/multiversion/issues/131
b) Please modify
#%%check
to
%check
%pyproject_check_import 
c) May want to package from  the commit corresponding to the release to get the license
file and the tests as they are not in the current sources, or raise an issue upstream.
d) Please fix (b) on import. Approved

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

Thank you!

FEDORA-2024-c8f28ca0a6 (python-sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c8f28ca0a6

FEDORA-2024-c8f28ca0a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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-c8f28ca0a6 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c8f28ca0a6

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

FEDORA-2024-c8f28ca0a6 (python-sphinx-multiversion-0.2.4-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.