Bug 2432499

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

fedora-review-service-build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10052501-python-pskc/fedora-review/
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10052501-python-pskc/python-pskc.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10052501-python-pskc/python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10052552
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432499-python-pskc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10052552-python-pskc/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.
[!]: 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 Library General Public License v2 or
     later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later and/or GNU Library General Public
     License v2 or later". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-pskc/2432499-
     python-pskc/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.14
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://arthurdejong.org/git/python-
     pskc/snapshot/python_pskc-1.4.tar.gz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[-]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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: python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp3ekhncoa')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary
python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING
python-pskc.src: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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

python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary
python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING
python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Requires
--------
python-pskc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(cryptography)
    python3.14dist(python-dateutil)



Provides
--------
python-pskc:
    python-pskc
    python-pskc(x86-64)
    python3.14dist(python-pskc)
    python3dist(python-pskc)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432499
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) %global debug_package %{nil}
is not needed, instead please add

BuildArch:      noarch

b) please shorten description line
c) Coverage information is not needed. Please remove
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-cov)
d) Source files are available on PyPI, please use
Source:         %{pypi_source pskc}
or even better
Source0:  https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-1.4.tar.gz
Source1:  https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-1.4.tar.gz.asc
Source2:  https://arthurdejong.org/arthur.asc

See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures

instead of

Source0:        %{forgeurl}/snapshot/python_pskc-%{version}.tar.gz
which does not seem to download

e) Consider packaging the documentation:
https://github.com/arthurdejong/python-pskc/tree/master/docs
f) License seems to be LGPL-2.1-or-later

fedora-review-service-build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/fedora-review/
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/python-pskc.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm

Thanks for the notes.

I’ve applied the applicable items (license correction and source URL). Other points, such as pytest-cov, aren’t applicable due to upstream test requirements and have been left unchanged.

Created attachment 2123654 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10052552 to 10054726

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10054726
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432499-python-pskc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054726-python-pskc/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.

I will take this review.

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

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

Issues
======
I'm going to repeat most of what Benson said, because I think he is right and
those issues really do need to be addressed.

- Replace `%global debug_package %{nil}` with `BuildArch: noarch`.  See the
  no-binary warning from rpmlint below.

- See the description-line-too-long from rpmlint below.  Add newlines to
  %pkg_description.  The %expand macro will preserve those.

- We don't want to run code coverage tools in Fedora builds:
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_linters.
  In this case, it is easy to remove.  Just add this (or the patch equivalent)
  to %prep:

  sed -i 's/--cov.*//' setup.cfg

  and remove `BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest-cov)` from the spec file.

- Please consider verifying source file signatures.  As Benson noted, you can
  do that with:

  Source0:  https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-%{version}.tar.gz
  Source1:  https://arthurdejong.org/python-pskc/python_pskc-%{version}.tar.gz.asc
  Source2:  https://arthurdejong.org/arthur.asc

  BuildRequires: gpgverify

  Then make this the first line of %prep (before %autosetup):

  %{gpgverify} --data=%{SOURCE0} --signature=%{SOURCE1} --keyring=%{SOURCE2}

  See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_verifying_signatures

  This also fixes the issue that the current Source0 URL is incorrect.

- The License field does not seem to be correct.  It should be
  LGPL-2.1-or-later.

Then a few other things from me:

- The binary package name should have a `python3-` prefix, rather than
  `python-`.  See
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming

- There is an empty `%install -a` section in the spec file.  That should be
  removed.

- I see you are pairing an explicit Release number with %autochangelog.  That
  is likely to lead to trouble down the road.  You should use %autorelease as
  well.

- Please consider adding `%doc NEWS README` to %files.

- See the incorrect-fsf-address warning from rpmlint below.  Please ask upstream
  to download an updated copy of the LGPL-2.1 license file, which now uses a
  web address instead of a street address; see
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "Unknown or
     generated", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or
     later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later and/or GNU Library General Public
     License v2 or later". 110 files have unknown license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[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.
[!]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0: https://arthurdejong.org/git/python-
     pskc/snapshot/python_pskc-1.4.tar.gz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[-]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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: python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm
          python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn9i4slla')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary
python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING
python-pskc.src: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 4 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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

python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary csv2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2csv
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pskc2pskc
python-pskc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
python-pskc.x86_64: E: no-binary
python-pskc.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/python_pskc-1.4.dist-info/licenses/COPYING
python-pskc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This Python library handles Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) files as defined in RFC 6030. PSKC files are used to transport and provision symmetric keys (seed files) to different types of crypto modules, commonly one-time password tokens or other authentication devices.
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Requires
--------
python-pskc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.14dist(cryptography)
    python3.14dist(python-dateutil)



Provides
--------
python-pskc:
    python-pskc
    python-pskc(x86-64)
    python3.14dist(python-pskc)
    python3dist(python-pskc)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2432499 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Ruby, Java, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Hey Jerry,
For some reason the automation in comment #7 didn't pick up the changes in comment #5; i.e.:

fedora-review-service-build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/fedora-review/
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/python-pskc.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10054719-python-pskc/python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10055498
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432499-python-pskc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10055498-python-pskc/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.

I deleted all the other builds so there is no confusion.
Should be good now.

fedora-review-service-build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056658-python-pskc/fedora-review/
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056658-python-pskc/python-pskc.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gbcox/dogfood/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056658-python-pskc/python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm

Created attachment 2123749 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10055498 to 10056662

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10056662
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2432499-python-pskc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10056662-python-pskc/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.

Sorry for the delay. Life has been extra busy for the last few days. The latest spec file addresses all of my concerns. This package is APPROVED.

No worries!  Thanks Jerry!

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

FEDORA-2026-959094a4b7 (python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-959094a4b7

FEDORA-2026-959094a4b7 (python-pskc-1.4-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1 (python-pskc-1.4-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1

FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1

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

FEDORA-2026-37f8b54fc1 (python-pskc-1.4-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.