Bug 2354311

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8805610
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354311-python-hanzidentifier/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08805610-python-hanzidentifier/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.

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /sfs/fedora-review/python-hanzidentifier.spec	2025-03-22 23:28:47.000000000 -0700
+++ /sfs/fedora-review/review-python-hanzidentifier/srpm-unpacked/python-hanzidentifier.spec	2025-03-20 17:00:00.000000000 -0700
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-hanzidentifier
 Version:        1.3.0
@@ -50,3 +60,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Fri Mar 21 2025 John Doe <packager> - 1.3.0-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec

The srpm is out of date, can you regenerate it ?

Updated
A copr build is at:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-zhon/build/8829300/


spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hanzidentifier.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hanzidentifier-1.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

Please check the srpm link, it still has the rpmautospec cruft.

This is a pretty simple packages.
A small improvement, please add

%doc README.rst

Added %doc README.rst

There is no way to remove the rpmautospec cruft produced by the automated review unless manual changelog and release entries are used.  This is because the rpm is rebuilt and this process creates the cruft.  The cruft does not appear when the package is imported,.


spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hanzidentifier.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hanzidentifier-1.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

How is your srpm being produced ?
not with rpmbuild -bs, this produces a consistent srpm.

 
Thanks for the change for %doc.
This is a pretty simple package.
I am going to assume you can sort out the srpm import.

Approved.


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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /sfs/fedora-review/review-python-
     hanzidentifier/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13,
     /usr/lib/python3.13/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:
[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:
[x]: 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]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-hanzidentifier-1.3.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python-hanzidentifier-1.3.0-1.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/tmp6k1f6ouo')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-hanzidentifier.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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-hanzidentifier.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/tsroten/hanzidentifier/archive/v1.3.0/hanzidentifier-1.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e855b1fe2108f63127794411f7bc8ba8b44557f38bdbbc65b7a63b7973fdc8ac
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e855b1fe2108f63127794411f7bc8ba8b44557f38bdbbc65b7a63b7973fdc8ac


Requires
--------
python3-hanzidentifier (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.13dist(zhon) >= 2.1 with python3.13dist(zhon) < 3)
    python(abi)



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

Thanks for the review. Have been using:
fedpkg srpm
Using 
rpmbuild -bs
gives
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-zhon/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08836980-python-hanzidentifier/fedora-review/review.txt

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

https://release-monitoring.org/project/377441/