Bug 2361639

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8951767
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2361639-python-androguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08951767-python-androguard/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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v3.0 or later". 150 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/python-androguard/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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-androguard-3.4.0a1-1.fc43~bootstrap.noarch.rpm
          python-androguard-3.4.0a1-1.fc43~bootstrap.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/tmpcjzgwc9_')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-androguard.src: E: spelling-error ('pentesting', 'Summary(en_US) pentesting -> pen testing, pen-testing, interesting')
python-androguard.src: E: spelling-error ('bytecodes', '%description -l en_US bytecodes -> byte codes, byte-codes, postcodes')
python3-androguard.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pentesting', 'Summary(en_US) pentesting -> pen testing, pen-testing, interesting')
python3-androguard.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/androguard/cli/entry_points.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androapkid
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androarsc
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androaxml
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androcg
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androdd
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androdis
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androguard
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androgui
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androlyze
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary androsign
python3-androguard.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-androguard.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: androguard-3.4.0a1-clean.tar.gz
python3-androguard.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 129664
python3-androguard.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/androguard/core/api_specific_resources/aosp_permissions/permissions_7.json /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/androguard/core/api_specific_resources/aosp_permissions/permissions_5.json:/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/androguard/core/api_specific_resources/aosp_permissions/permissions_6.json
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 13 warnings, 11 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-androguard".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Requires
--------
python3-androguard (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(asn1crypto)
    python3.13dist(click)
    python3.13dist(colorama)
    python3.13dist(ipython)
    python3.13dist(lxml)
    python3.13dist(matplotlib)
    python3.13dist(networkx)
    python3.13dist(pydot)
    python3.13dist(pygments)



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



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-androguard --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Perl, R, Haskell, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
A new version is available, but this does not block approval.

From what I can tell, the source files marked LGPL (tools/andromark.py and tools/andrototal.py) do not make it to the package.

Approved.

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

FEDORA-2025-923c1b85e0 (python-androguard-3.4.0a1-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-923c1b85e0

FEDORA-2025-923c1b85e0 (python-androguard-3.4.0a1-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255 (python-apkinspector-1.3.2-4.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255

FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255

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

FEDORA-2025-ae1e647255 (python-apkinspector-1.3.2-4.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.