Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/pgcli.spec SRPM URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/pgcli-3.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: CLI for Postgres Database. With auto-completion and syntax highlighting Fedora Account System Username: itamarjp
Remove -n %{pypi_name}-%{version}
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #1) done.
- 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/vascom/1833785-pgcli/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #3) I have downloaded the tarball from github, and fedora-review from pypi, they come from same place, but checksum are not the same. I have replaced the tarball and fedora review should be happy now.
Approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/1833785-pgcli/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 2 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.2 starting (python version = 3.8.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.2 INFO: Mock Version: 2.2 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/vascom/1833785-pgcli/results/pgcli-3.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 33 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/vascom/1833785-pgcli/results/pgcli-3.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: pgcli-3.0.0-1.fc33.noarch.rpm pgcli-3.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm pgcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pgcli 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pgcli/pgcli-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4920225838e8004ae6d2ec42f566e0a8b99c4bd42bc2c876d0de8501da0a4082 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4920225838e8004ae6d2ec42f566e0a8b99c4bd42bc2c876d0de8501da0a4082 Requires -------- pgcli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.8dist(prompt-toolkit) < 4 with python3.8dist(prompt-toolkit) >= 3) (python3.8dist(sqlparse) < 0.4 with python3.8dist(sqlparse) >= 0.3) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(cli-helpers) python3.8dist(click) python3.8dist(configobj) python3.8dist(humanize) python3.8dist(pgspecial) python3.8dist(psycopg2) python3.8dist(pygments) python3.8dist(setproctitle) python3.8dist(setuptools) python3dist(cli-helpers) python3dist(click) python3dist(configobj) python3dist(humanize) python3dist(prompt-toolkit) python3dist(psycopg2) python3dist(pygments) python3dist(setproctitle) python3dist(sqlparse) Provides -------- pgcli: pgcli python-pgcli python3.8-pgcli python3.8dist(pgcli) python3dist(pgcli) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1833785 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/24900
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #5) Depends On: 1833783
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgcli
*** Bug 1570551 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b
FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-f312bca70b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.