Bug 2380413

APPROVED but please change the license from MIT to  ASL 2.0



Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- license MIT vs Apache-2.0 issue
! tests are not run, but justified.



===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/paul/2380413-python3-pydo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.14
[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.
[x]: 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 9022 bytes in 1 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.
[-]: 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).
[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.
[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-pydo-0.13.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          python3-pydo-0.13.0-1.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/tmp7i6su91r')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-pydo.noarch: W: tag-in-description Summary:
python3-pydo.src: W: tag-in-description Summary:
python3-pydo.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
python3-pydo.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
python3-pydo.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pydo/operations/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pydo/aio/operations/__init__.py
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 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-pydo.noarch: W: tag-in-description Summary:
python3-pydo.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
python3-pydo.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pydo/operations/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pydo/aio/operations/__init__.py
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/digitalocean/pydo/releases/download/v0.13.0/pydo-0.13.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e943aa08071e72f17ea8f10570490bec38284bdee6c025c43885450a088acf83
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e943aa08071e72f17ea8f10570490bec38284bdee6c025c43885450a088acf83


Requires
--------
python3-pydo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(azure-core)
    python3.14dist(azure-identity)
    python3.14dist(isodate)
    python3.14dist(msrest)
    python3.14dist(typing-extensions)



Provides
--------
python3-pydo:
    python-pydo
    python3-pydo
    python3.14-pydo
    python3.14dist(pydo)
    python3dist(pydo)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2380413
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
search hit BOTTOM, continuing at TOP                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  121,7         Bot

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-pydo

Updated Spec file

I just realised this should not be "python3-pydo" but "python-pydo" that builds python3-pydo pacakges? Unless recent fedora changes this ?

Tests can be run.  May want to ask for a new repository python-pydo and raise a releng issue at
https://pagure.io/releng/issues/
to remove python3-pydo

An example build with tests:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9286799

> I just realised this should not be "python3-pydo" but "python-pydo" that builds python3-pydo pacakges?

This is correct, although in the RFC 2119 sense it's not a SHOULD, it's a MUST.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming

neurowinter, please retire python3-pydo on all branches and request the python-pydo distgit repo instead.

I have updated the spec and the srpm attached to this ticket.

Carl What is the correct process here, should I follow the full process for renaming a repo here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages 

Or shall I just hit retire on all my branches and create a new repo?

> Carl What is the correct process here, should I follow the full process for renaming a repo here:

Obsoletes/provides won't be necessary, because the binary RPM name isn't changing.  Anyone who installed python3-pydo on Rawhide will see the next update to python3-pydo (from the python-pydo SRPM) as a natural upgrade.  You can trigger this sooner by going ahead and bumping the release from 1 to 2.  You'll also want to add a changelog, which is missing from the current package.

> Or shall I just hit retire on all my branches and create a new repo?

Yes please.  I think to make the SCM toddler happy the subject of this bug has to match the package name, so I'll go ahead and change that.

Okay I have updated the bug ticket with the new spec and srpm files. 

I will go ahead and retire all the branches, and once this is approved again, I will create a new repo.

The package was already approved, so you just need to request the python-pydo dist-git repo.

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