Bug 2556387

Hi Benson

Just curious, did you look at the previous spec file?
It looks like you rewrote it from scratch. :)
Though the old packaging might look outdated - I am not a python packaging expert.
Overall a smaller diff might be easier to review - though I don't see any serious problems.

At the very least I think %license is missing from %files.

There are new macros for Python, so cannot update the old spec file. The current
macros are specified in:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/

The license is correctly marked:
$ rpm -qL  python3-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/hl7-0.4.5.dist-info/licenses/AUTHORS
/usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/hl7-0.4.5.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE

but had included the AUTHORS file twice. Now removed.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

Have other packages that could do with review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463837
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463834
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463835

If you would prefer to take one of those, that would also be fine.

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #2)
> There are new macros for Python, so cannot update the old spec file. 

Right I understand that it needed updating, though in general it is still possible
that there might potentially be something useful there that could be brought forward.
It is not a brand new package: in fact another way to do the review could be
via a PR in dist-git I feel.  Anyway it's okay, let's proceed. :-)
It seems the packaging was quite outdated.

> The current macros are specified in:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/

Okay I see thanks, it is covered by %{pyproject_files}.
Fair enough, though it makes generic tooling harder...

> but had included the AUTHORS file twice. Now removed.
> spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7.spec
> srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

Okay

> Have other packages that could do with review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463837
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463834
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463835
> 
> If you would prefer to take one of those, that would also be fine.

Ah well yes indeed - I am much more interested in reviewing Haskell then Python packages :-)

Perhaps you could comment in them what/why you wish them added? :)

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

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

Issues:
=======

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error: see the checksums below.

The current upstream "objects.inv" and the one included differ.
Is that expected?  Any way to handle this better?
What is it for actually?

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


===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 48 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/petersen/pkgreview/reviews/2556387-python-hl7.fbrnch/python-
     hl7/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.15
[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]: 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 is not relocatable.
[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 625 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:
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename:
     /home/petersen/pkgreview/reviews/2556387-python-hl7.fbrnch/python-
     hl7/srpm-unpacked/python-hl7.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-hl7-0.4.5-2.fc46.noarch.rpm
          python-hl7-0.4.5-2.fc46.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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('/home/petersen/tmp/tmpmzfoxz8u')]
checks: 33, packages: 2

python-hl7.src: W: spelling-error ('mllp', '%description -l en_US mllp -> ml')
python-hl7.src: W: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python-hl7.src: W: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mllp_send
python-hl7.spec:61: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 61)
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 1

python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mllp_send
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hl7/hl7-0.4.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b6eb97499ebe236e00c3009d43e6b0f040de002df12a292fa5efbd2ce2a8a838
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6eb97499ebe236e00c3009d43e6b0f040de002df12a292fa5efbd2ce2a8a838
https://docs.python.org/3/objects.inv :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 101cce732c6ee73b6a65ec7343b55614ce40d1354fdaeedc32d7db8cf7d22a3a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4ca707e693ec0bfcf92ecf119f4deadea7669b41cc0c535b23cdc798363cb5db
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
python3-hl7 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-hl7:
    python-hl7
    python3-hl7
    python3.15-hl7
    python3.15dist(hl7)
    python3dist(hl7)



Generated by fedora-review 0.12.0 (a08f0fc) last change: 2026-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn /home/petersen/pkgreview/reviews/2556387-python-hl7.fbrnch/SRPMS/python-hl7-0.4.5-2.fc46.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Java, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, UNRETIREMENT

>  - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>   in the spec URL.
>   Note: Upstream MD5sum check error: see the checksums below.
>
> The current upstream "objects.inv" and the one included differ.
> Is that expected?  Any way to handle this better?
> What is it for actually?
>
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

The objects.inv file is a mapping for intersphinx documentation, it allows for
cross references between different python packages.  Will check if the Python sig
wants to have a standard way to manage this.

>> Have other packages that could do with review:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463837
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463834
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2463835
>> 
>> If you would prefer to take one of those, that would also be fine.
>
> Ah well yes indeed - I am much more interested in reviewing Haskell then Python packages :-)
>
> Perhaps you could comment in them what/why you wish them added? :)

The main Haskell package of interest is:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/mediawiki2latex
the others are unpackaged dependencies

Can ask someone else to review this, but if you are happy to finish this,
that is also fine can review other package requests you may have.

Okay let's see what the Python folks say.

I don't mind - if a python experts wants to take over that is fine,
or they can comment that this is okay or what should change and I can also approve it.

Thanks

If you are not tired of me already (-:
I do have a few other Haskell pending package reviews:

NEW ghc-fedora-krb: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351397
NEW ghc-cabal-install-solver: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2360871
NEW ghc-filelock: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2434852
NEW ghc-file-io: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2435005

(I added comments now explaining what they are for - basically all unbundlings,
which is particularly important once the deps are shared between packages.)

which would be good to have - obviously not asking you to do all of them. :)
But if you should have time for 1 or 2 that would be great, thanks

Will review the haskell packages next week.

@petersen I am willing to take this review, as part of a swap with Benson. Currently you have the fedora-review flag set. Can you clear that flag so I can take over? Thanks!

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hl7
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

  This is fine. It just means that the unretirement process must be followed.

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/jamesjer/2556387-python-hl7/diff.txt
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

  Any idea what happened here?

- The current Source1 is not needed. We already have an objects.inv for python3
  in the distribution.  Remove that source, add this:

  BuildRequires: python3-docs

  and use this path instead of %{SOURCE1}:

  %{_docdir}/python3-docs/html/objects.inv

  You don't even need to copy the file if you changes docs-intersphinx.patch to
  point to that location directly.

- But maybe you want a Source for the badge?  From the build log:

WARNING: Could not fetch remote image: https://github.com/johnpaulett/python-hl7/workflows/Python%20package/badge.svg [HTTPSConnectionPool(host='github.com', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: /johnpaulett/python-hl7/workflows/Python%20package/badge.svg (Caused by NameResolutionError("HTTPSConnection(host='github.com', port=443): Failed to resolve 'github.com' ([Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution)"))]

- Is the make BR really needed? I don't see make invoked anywhere.

- Please add a short comment about the patch, so future maintainers know why
  it is needed.

- Please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warnings (spurious tab on line 51)

===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 48 files have
     unknown license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.15
[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.
[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 is not relocatable.
[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 625 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: 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: Bad spec filename: /home/jamesjer/2556387-python-hl7/srpm-
     unpacked/python-hl7.spec
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc46.noarch.rpm
          python-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc46.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/tmpnhzsl4ic')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-hl7.src: E: spelling-error ('mllp', '%description -l en_US mllp -> ml')
python-hl7.src: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python-hl7.src: E: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: E: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-hl7.noarch: E: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mllp_send
python-hl7.spec:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 51)
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/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: 33, packages: 1

python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('de', '%description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: spelling-error ('facto', '%description -l en_US facto -> fact, factor, facts')
python3-hl7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mllp_send
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hl7/hl7-0.4.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b6eb97499ebe236e00c3009d43e6b0f040de002df12a292fa5efbd2ce2a8a838
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6eb97499ebe236e00c3009d43e6b0f040de002df12a292fa5efbd2ce2a8a838
https://docs.python.org/3/objects.inv :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 101cce732c6ee73b6a65ec7343b55614ce40d1354fdaeedc32d7db8cf7d22a3a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e2b40d21db936747a802f72ecb10ab2b82d8259c7f2abd9d528876a401311d5
diff -r also reports differences


Requires
--------
python3-hl7 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-hl7:
    python-hl7
    python3-hl7
    python3.15-hl7
    python3.15dist(hl7)
    python3dist(hl7)



Generated by fedora-review 0.12.0 (a08f0fc) last change: 2026-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2556387 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, R, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Ruby, C/C++, Perl, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, UNRETIREMENT

Thanks for the feedback.

>- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>  in the spec URL.
>  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
>  /home/jamesjer/2556387-python-hl7/diff.txt
>  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
>
>  Any idea what happened here?

Not sure,

> - The current Source1 is not needed. We already have an objects.inv for python3
>  in the distribution.  Remove that source, add this:
>
>  BuildRequires: python3-docs
>
>  and use this path instead of %{SOURCE1}:
>
>  %{_docdir}/python3-docs/html/objects.inv
>
>  You don't even need to copy the file if you changes docs-intersphinx.patch to
>  point to that location directly.

Done. Thanks.

> - But maybe you want a Source for the badge?  From the build log:
>
> WARNING: Could not fetch remote image: https://github.com/johnpaulett/python-hl7/workflows/Python%20package/badge.svg [HTTPSConnectionPool(host='github.com', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url: /johnpaulett/python-hl7/workflows/Python%20package/badge.svg (Caused by NameResolutionError("HTTPSConnection(host='github.com', port=443): Failed to resolve 'github.com' ([Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution)"))]

Added a patch to remove this.

> - Is the make BR really needed? I don't see make invoked anywhere.

Removed.

- Please add a short comment about the patch, so future maintainers know why
  it is needed.

Done

> - Please fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs warnings (spurious tab on line 51)

Fixed

spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7.spec
srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-hl7-0.4.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

@loganjerry Are you still planning to review this package? If not then I will be happy to take a look! Thanks!
Also, as far as I can see, this is a request for package unretirement, so please fill in `Unretirement`in the whitebhoard placeholder of the ticket.

(In reply to Sundaram Krishnan from comment #12)
> @loganjerry Are you still planning to review this package? If not
> then I will be happy to take a look! Thanks!

That's an odd question to ask only a couple of days after my last comment. Yes, I am still on board with this review.

> Also, as far as I can see, this is a request for package unretirement, so
> please fill in `Unretirement`in the whitebhoard placeholder of the ticket.

And now you've puzzled me again. Since when is that needed? The policy document certainly doesn't say anything about it: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/#unorphaning_and_unretiring_packages

The new spec file looks good to me. This package is APPROVED. I will try overwriting the petersen fedora-review flag instead of waiting any longer for it to be cleared.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hl7
Monitoring:
Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`

Thanks for the review.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/20058/

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #13)
> I will try overwriting the petersen fedora-review flag
> instead of waiting any longer for it to be cleared.

Sure - sorry about that - thanks Jerry