Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses-0.8-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This package is an implementation of PEP 557, Data Classes. It is a backport for Python 3.6, as dataclasses is included in Python 3.7 and later. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
License should be ASL 2.0, not MIT. Per the upstream repo - looks like this was when the initial implementation took place, so the license is probably OK -- the version shipped with Python 3.7 is under the Python license, but if there's only one copyright owner they have the right to relicense. I wonder if we can find documentation for that though. You probably don't need the conditionals as the package will only ever be built on epel8? Also maybe add a version limit on BuildRequires: python3-devel. ``` %if 0%{?fedora} < 33 || 0%{?rhel} < 9 %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name} %endif ``` ``` BuildRequires: python3-devel >= 3.6 BuildRequires: python3-devel < 3.7 ``` The description is duplicated, you can reuse the definition: ``` %global _description %{expand: This package is an implementation of PEP 557, Data Classes. It is a backport for Python 3.6, as dataclasses is included in Python 3.7 and later.} %description %_description ```
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses-0.8-2.el8.src.rpm Changelog: - Correct license - Scope BuildRequires to Python 3.6 - Rework description
Almost there. %files should include %license LICENSE.txt Everything else looks fine 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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1912143-python- dataclasses/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. [-]: 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 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-dataclasses-0.8-2.el8.noarch.rpm python-dataclasses-0.8-2.el8.src.rpm python3-dataclasses.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-dataclasses.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/dataclasses/dataclasses-0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8479067f342acf957dc82ec415d355ab5edb7e7646b90dc6e2fd1d96ad084c97 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8479067f342acf957dc82ec415d355ab5edb7e7646b90dc6e2fd1d96ad084c97 Requires -------- python3-dataclasses (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-dataclasses: python-dataclasses python3-dataclasses python3.6dist(dataclasses) python3dist(dataclasses) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1912143 -m epel-8-x86_64 Buildroot used: epel-8-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-dataclasses/python-dataclasses-0.8-3.el8.src.rpm Changelog: - Add LICENSE.txt to files
Looks good to me. APPROVED
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo python-dataclasses 1912143 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31575
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dataclasses
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-202aed656b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-202aed656b
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-202aed656b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-202aed656b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-202aed656b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.