Bug 2329377

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8324117
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2329377-sdkmanager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08324117-python-sdkmanager/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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU
     Affero General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated",
     "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later". 8 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /review/2329377-python-sdkmanager/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, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages/__pycache__
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[?]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-sdkmanager (description)
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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
[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.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== 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-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc42.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpvp4nnro9')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-sdkmanager.src: W: summary-not-capitalized sdkmanager from the Android SDK written in Python
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized sdkmanager from the Android SDK written in Python
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/sdkmanager.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdkmanager
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings, 11 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 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-sdkmanager.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized sdkmanager from the Android SDK written in Python
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/sdkmanager.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sdkmanager
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sdkmanager/sdkmanager-0.6.10.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e08b402a4b8d19aa6c983c8cfc3328de5c5d2fdfaf96f55a2b67610e0297d599
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e08b402a4b8d19aa6c983c8cfc3328de5c5d2fdfaf96f55a2b67610e0297d599


Requires
--------
python3-sdkmanager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ((python3.13dist(requests) < 2.18 or python3.13dist(requests) > 2.18) with python3.13dist(requests) > 2.12.2.0)
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(argcomplete)
    python3.13dist(looseversion)
    python3.13dist(urllib3)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2329377
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, Perl, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, C/C++, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


NOTES
-----
The shebang in the main module file under site-packages should be stripped:
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/sdkmanager.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 -sP

The use of "%" inside description is evaluated as macro:
Macros in: python3-sdkmanager (description)

As personal opinion, I think it would be better to name the package 'python-sdkmanager' to be clear that this is not Google's
sdkmanager. WDYT?

Agh, forgot the last paragraph about package naming... it's morning and I had a busy couple of days...

Have renamed to python-sdkmanager, it is not a library, but may help distinguish
from the other sdkmanager software provided by Google. It is sdkmanager in Debian
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/sdkmanager Could also use python-android-sdkmanager
as the package name. Removed shebang.


spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-sdkmanager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08332533-python-sdkmanager/python-sdkmanager.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-sdkmanager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08332533-python-sdkmanager/python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc42.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8332536
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2329377-python-sdkmanager/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08332536-python-sdkmanager/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.

Rpmlint still shows
python3-sdkmanager.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/sdkmanager.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3

I think it's complaining about the executable bit rather than the shebang.
Please fix that before import, the package is APPROVED.

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

FEDORA-2024-d24284f93a (python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d24284f93a

FEDORA-2024-2b66b8ce0a (python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2b66b8ce0a

FEDORA-2024-d24284f93a 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-d24284f93a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d24284f93a

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

FEDORA-2024-2b66b8ce0a 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-2024-2b66b8ce0a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2b66b8ce0a

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

FEDORA-2024-2b66b8ce0a (python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-d24284f93a (python-sdkmanager-0.6.10-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.