Bug 2335265

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8463886
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335265-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08463886-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-unique-log-filter/diff.txt
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

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.

Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: A log filter that removes duplicate log messages
Fedora Account System Username: mikep

Update to use PyPI source.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8956549
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335265-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08956549-python-unique-log-filter/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.
[ ]: 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-unique-
     log-filter/2335265-python-unique-log-filter/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmp1r30_9uk')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/unique_log_filter/unique_log_filter-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 411ca5b30572293fc37cd93a651da2a56d4b3a4fdafe9fdfaac14eee54d6a8db
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 411ca5b30572293fc37cd93a651da2a56d4b3a4fdafe9fdfaac14eee54d6a8db


Requires
--------
python3-unique-log-filter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-unique-log-filter:
    python-unique-log-filter
    python3-unique-log-filter
    python3.13-unique-log-filter
    python3.13dist(unique-log-filter)
    python3dist(unique-log-filter)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335265
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Please get the source files from GitHub:
https://github.com/twizmwazin/unique_log_filter
there is a license file and a test that can be run.

Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: A log filter that removes duplicate log messages
Fedora Account System Username: mikep

Switch to GitHub for source.

Created attachment 2086993 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8956549 to 8963646

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8963646
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335265-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08963646-python-unique-log-filter/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.

Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: A log filter that removes duplicate log messages
Fedora Account System Username: mikep

Run provided unit test.

Created attachment 2094438 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8963646 to 9189169

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9189169
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335265-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09189169-python-unique-log-filter/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.
[!]: 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-
     unique-log-filter/2335265-python-unique-log-filter/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages, /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.
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: %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-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
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/tmp1r30_9uk')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/unique_log_filter/unique_log_filter-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 411ca5b30572293fc37cd93a651da2a56d4b3a4fdafe9fdfaac14eee54d6a8db
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 411ca5b30572293fc37cd93a651da2a56d4b3a4fdafe9fdfaac14eee54d6a8db


Requires
--------
python3-unique-log-filter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-unique-log-filter:
    python-unique-log-filter
    python3-unique-log-filter
    python3.13-unique-log-filter
    python3.13dist(unique-log-filter)
    python3dist(unique-log-filter)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335265
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java, Perl, R, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) The source has license and tests, please add
%license LICENSE
to the files listing and run the tests.
Please also change
%pyproject_save_files unique_log_filter
to
%pyproject_save_files -L unique_log_filter
to indicate license metadata needs to be added separately.

Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: A log filter that removes duplicate log messages
Fedora Account System Username: mikep

- Add -L to use of %pyproject_save_files.
- I think I had already added %license ...
- I think I had already added run of tests.

Created attachment 2094509 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9189169 to 9193338

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9193338
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335265-python-unique-log-filter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09193338-python-unique-log-filter/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: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-unique-log-
     filter/2335265-python-unique-log-filter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages
[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]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[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-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
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/tmpjaxz9wne')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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-unique-log-filter.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/twizmwazin/unique_log_filter/archive/v0.1.0/unique_log_filter-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 63d27fac1684f052e4ce909cffd2abb6be952a4dc53eb4abe0d3bba61db85b8e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 63d27fac1684f052e4ce909cffd2abb6be952a4dc53eb4abe0d3bba61db85b8e


Requires
--------
python3-unique-log-filter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-unique-log-filter:
    python-unique-log-filter
    python3-unique-log-filter
    python3.14-unique-log-filter
    python3.14dist(unique-log-filter)
    python3dist(unique-log-filter)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335265
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, R, Haskell, Java, Perl, C/C++
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) License file does get metadata
$ rpm -qL python3-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm 
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/unique_log_filter-0.1.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/python3-unique-log-filter/LICENSE

please remove
%license LICENSE
and change
%pyproject_save_files -L unique_log_filter
to
%pyproject_save_files -l unique_log_filter
b) Consider adding
%doc README.md
to the file listing
c) Approved. Please fix at least (a) before import, sorry for the confusion.
d) Would appreciate review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373135
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373134
if expertise allows, but if not review of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372327
would be appreciated.

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

I added README.md. Thank you.

Following your instructions from (a) causes this:

+ /usr/bin/python3 /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py --output-files /home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-build/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.noarch-pyproject-files --output-modules /home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-build/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.noarch-pyproject-modules --buildroot /home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-build/BUILDROOT --sitelib /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages --sitearch /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages --python-version 3.13 --pyproject-record /home/mike/Source/rpms/BUILD/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-build/python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc42.noarch-pyproject-record --prefix /usr -l unique_log_filter
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 905, in <module>
    main(cli_args)
    ~~~~^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 846, in main
    file_section, module_names = pyproject_save_files_and_modules(
                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
        cli_args.buildroot,
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ...<7 lines>...
        cli_args.varargs,
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    )
    ^
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py", line 834, in pyproject_save_files_and_modules
    raise ValueError(
    ...<5 lines>...
    )
ValueError: No License-File (PEP 639) in upstream metadata found. Adjust the upstream metadata if the project's build backend supports PEP 639 or use `%pyproject_save_files -L` and include the %license file in %files manually.
error: Bad exit status from /tmp/rpm-tmp.OlQI0G (%install)

FEDORA-2025-28481887d2 (python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-28481887d2

FEDORA-2025-28481887d2 (python-unique-log-filter-0.1.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.