Bug 2352899

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8773217
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2352899-python-isal/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08773217-python-isal/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 =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "Unknown or generated", "Python Software Foundation License
     2.0", "zlib License". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-isal/2352899-
     python-isal/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13,
     /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-isal-1.7.2-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          python-isal-1.7.2-1.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/tmpl61wavqj')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-isal.src: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-isal.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-isal.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 15 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 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-isal.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gzip', 'Summary(en_US) gzip -> zip, grip, g zip')
python3-isal.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('de', 'Summary(en_US) de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-isal.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gzip', '%description -l en_US gzip -> zip, grip, g zip')
python3-isal.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 5 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-isal: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/isal/_isal.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-isal: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/isal/igzip_lib.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
python3-isal: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/isal/isal_zlib.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pycompression/python-isal/archive/refs/tags/v1.7.2/python-isal-1.7.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 58377f0bfc007f1a3e6fd865c2496982c9622fbd3076515fc0a5014ffd503d37
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58377f0bfc007f1a3e6fd865c2496982c9622fbd3076515fc0a5014ffd503d37


Requires
--------
python3-isal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libisal.so.2()(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
python3-isal:
    python-isal
    python3-isal
    python3-isal(x86-64)
    python3.13-isal
    python3.13dist(isal)
    python3dist(isal)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352899
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Python, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Approved
b) Review of one of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357156
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358869
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358245
would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.

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

FEDORA-2025-0d03b95652 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0d03b95652

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4d67ce70d7 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4d67ce70d7

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-a6c73c5a08 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-a6c73c5a08

FEDORA-2025-0d03b95652 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-2025-0d03b95652 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-0d03b95652

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6108c49c9a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6108c49c9a

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4d67ce70d7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4d67ce70d7

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-a6c73c5a08 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-2025-a6c73c5a08

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

FEDORA-2025-957012e667 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-957012e667 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-957012e667

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-6108c49c9a (python-isal-1.7.2-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-4d67ce70d7 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-957012e667 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2025-a6c73c5a08 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-0d03b95652 (python-isal-1.7.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.