Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-sphinx_selective_exclude.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/python/python-sphinx_selective_exclude-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The implementation of ".. only::" directive in Sphinx documentation generation tool is known to violate principles of least user surprise and user expectations in general. Instead of excluding content early in the pipeline (preprocessor style), Sphinx defers exclusion until output phase, and what's the worst, various stages processing ignore "only" blocks and their exclusion status, so they may leak unexpected information into ToC, indexes, etc. This projects tries to rectify situation on users' side. It actually changes the way Sphinx processes "only" directive, but does this without forking the project, and instead is made as a standard Sphinx extension, which a user may add to their documentation config. Unlike normal extensions, extensions provided in this package monkey-patch Sphinx core to work in a way expected by users. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068931 Looks good. Package approved! Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-sphinx_selective_exclude/python- sphinx_selective_exclude/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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinx_selective_exclude-1.0.3-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sphinx_selective_exclude-1.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-sphinx_selective_exclude 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx_selective_exclude/sphinx_selective_exclude-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 76fc8fd7c24311e0ca2199a9e4db2156585acd7652a5cead98b07ef4f70f9b78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76fc8fd7c24311e0ca2199a9e4db2156585acd7652a5cead98b07ef4f70f9b78 Requires -------- python3-sphinx_selective_exclude (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-sphinx Provides -------- python3-sphinx_selective_exclude: python-sphinx_selective_exclude python3-sphinx_selective_exclude python3.9-sphinx_selective_exclude python3.9dist(sphinx-selective-exclude) python3dist(sphinx-selective-exclude)
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068931 > > > Looks good. Package approved! Full review below: Thanks Andy! ❯ fedpkg request-repo python-sphinx_selective_exclude 1900129 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30851
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx_selective_exclude
FEDORA-2020-c6cad0fd88 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c6cad0fd88
FEDORA-2020-79f5b7724c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-79f5b7724c
FEDORA-2020-c6cad0fd88 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-c6cad0fd88 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c6cad0fd88 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-79f5b7724c 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-2020-79f5b7724c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-79f5b7724c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-c6cad0fd88 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-79f5b7724c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.