Bug 2402141

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9660738
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2402141-fedora-repro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09660738-fedora-repro/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.

*** Bug 2344732 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I pushed a commit to the repo to update the address of FSF.

Taking this review.

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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
     2.1 and/or GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No
     copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 3 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /tmp/2402141-fedora-repro/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /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.
[x]: 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 2111 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.
[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:
[-]: 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:
[!]: 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: fedora-repro-0.1^20251007g0bcb874-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          fedora-repro-0.1^20251007g0bcb874-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmpibfxxzwo')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

fedora-repro.noarch: E: spelling-error ('koji', '%description -l en_US koji -> kook, Loki, jig')
fedora-repro.src: E: spelling-error ('koji', '%description -l en_US koji -> kook, Loki, jig')
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-build
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-listen
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-work
fedora-repro.spec: W: no-%check-section
fedora-repro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/fedora_repro-0.1.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.LGPL2.1
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 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

fedora-repro.noarch: E: spelling-error ('koji', '%description -l en_US koji -> emoji')
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-build
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-listen
fedora-repro.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-repro-work
fedora-repro.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/fedora_repro-0.1.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.LGPL2.1
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/keszybz/fedora-repro/archive/0bcb874deeb3e6448783e79c602ecd2192ab6f68/fedora-repro-0bcb874.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4d7d2286706d1b03fa2d758fb9d5a7f685e1bc9a8e7aa2541d411dfcb73b5515
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4d7d2286706d1b03fa2d758fb9d5a7f685e1bc9a8e7aa2541d411dfcb73b5515


Requires
--------
fedora-repro (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    /usr/bin/rpmdiff
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(ipcqueue)



Provides
--------
fedora-repro:
    fedora-repro
    python3.14dist(fedora-repro)
    python3dist(fedora-repro)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /tmp/2402141-fedora-repro/srpm/fedora-repro.spec	2025-10-11 21:01:11.902090800 +0200
+++ /tmp/2402141-fedora-repro/srpm-unpacked/fedora-repro.spec	2025-10-07 02:00:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1)
+## 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
+
 %global commit 0bcb874deeb3e6448783e79c602ecd2192ab6f68
 %global commitdate 20251007
@@ -52,3 +62,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Tue Oct 07 2025 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek.pl> - 0.1^20251007g0bcb874-1
+- Rename package to fedora-repro, use pyproject config
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2402141
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

The spec delta error is due to rpmautospec, everything else lgtm. APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repro

Thanks! It's building now, for rawhide, f43, f42.
I'm sure that there'll be further updates needed, but this initial implementation is done.