rss2email has been orphaned, but is still useful. Description: rss2email lets you subscribe to a list of XML newsfeeds (RSS or Atom). It can parse them regularly with the help of cron and send new items to you by email. An HTML mail will be send in the default configuration to the local SMTP server. See the manual page r2e for details on how to set up rss2email. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/astra/rss2email/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00998081-rss2email/rss2email.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/astra/rss2email/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00998081-rss2email/rss2email-3.9-2.20190812git4708c4b.fc31.src.rpm I'd like to fix the open issues, but as I'm not yet maintainer I couldn't just take the package: * FTBFS: #1736593 Fixed by switching the upstream version * Should be migrated to Python 3: #1738816 New upstream version is already in Python 3 - migration script exists * Does not build on EPEL Depends on #1663178 and #1740322 , but should be easily doable as python36 is now coming to RHEL7 as python3 Currently it builds on fc30, rawhide and rhel8, for epel7 those bugs are blocking. Most of the spec-file is taken from Matej Cepl (mcepl) and some python3-migration-changes are from a pull request from Filip Szymański (fszymanski), pushed to a more recent git version. Fedora Account System Username: astra
A successful Koji scratch build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37106599
- It is forbidden to glob the entire %{python3_sitelib} directory, be more specific instead: %{python3_sitelib}/%{name} %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}*.egg-info Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files Note: Package contains %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files See: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782 ===== 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* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License (v2)". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rss2email/review-rss2email/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files. [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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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: rss2email-3.9-2.20190812git4708c4b.fc32.noarch.rpm rss2email-3.9-2.20190812git4708c4b.fc32.src.rpm rss2email.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newsfeeds -> news feeds, news-feeds, newsstands rss2email.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone rss2email.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/r2e.1.gz 155: warning: macro `publisher',' not defined rss2email.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newsfeeds -> news feeds, news-feeds, newsstands rss2email.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone rss2email.src: W: strange-permission r2e-migrate 775 rss2email.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} rss2email.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{python3_sitelib} rss2email.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python3} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
The globbing issue and the spelling mistake should be fixed, I've compiled a new release on copr. The strange-permission warning is still there, although on my system it says "rss2email.src: W: strange-permission r2e-migrate 755", which I think should be okay. Spec and src.rpm: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/astra/rss2email/fedora-30-x86_64/01021523-rss2email/rss2email.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/astra/rss2email/fedora-30-x86_64/01021523-rss2email/rss2email-3.9-3.20190812git4708c4b.fc30.src.rpm
LGTM, package approved.
I've sponsored David as a packager. We'll work through the pending package unretirement and all that stuff together.
Package is in repos