SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Nycticoraci/FriendlyFedora/main/python-wget/python-wget.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Nycticoraci/FriendlyFedora/main/python-wget/python-wget-3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The wget command is a non-interactive utility to download remote files from the internet which is built-in with Unix based operating systems. It supports HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP protocols, as well retrieval through HTTP proxies. This package is a dependency for Echo360 that is used for viewing video lectures. Fedora Account System Username: mannyy687
I am a bit concerned that the URL in the spec file does not resolve to a repository anymore, so it is not clear where the upstream source is. Is there another repository for this program? Parts to fix: * The review request (this bug) must be renamed to fit the format "Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here> " * Don't glob the global __pycache__ directory, instead use %pycached %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}.py (see the example in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_byte_compiling) * The changelog must have an * at the start of the date line * Capitalize the first word in the summary (this is pointed out in the lint messages below) 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/imcinerney/dev/fedora/packaging/review/1949624-python- wget/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 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. [!]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-wget-3.2-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-wget-3.2-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-wget.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C pure python download utility python3-wget.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament python3-wget.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bitbucket.org/techtonik/python-wget/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found python-wget.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C pure python download utility python-wget.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament python-wget.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://bitbucket.org/techtonik/python-wget/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-wget.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C pure python download utility python3-wget.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filename -> file name, file-name, filament python3-wget.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bitbucket.org/techtonik/python-wget/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/w/wget/wget-3.2.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35e630eca2aa50ce998b9b1a127bb26b30dfee573702782aa982f875e3f16061 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35e630eca2aa50ce998b9b1a127bb26b30dfee573702782aa982f875e3f16061 Requires -------- python3-wget (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-wget: python-wget python3-wget python3.9-wget python3.9dist(wget) python3dist(wget) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/imcinerney/dev/fedora/packaging/review/1949624-python-wget/srpm/python-wget.spec 2021-04-15 00:43:50.800497978 +0100 +++ /home/imcinerney/dev/fedora/packaging/review/1949624-python-wget/srpm-unpacked/python-wget.spec 2021-02-16 20:48:46.000000000 +0000 @@ -46,4 +46,4 @@ %changelog -Mon Apr 12 2021 Gerard Bechard <gbechard> - 3.2 +* Sat Jan 02 2021 Gerard Bechard - 3.2-1 - Initial package. Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1949624 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell, R, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
SPEC URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Nycticoraci/FriendlyFedora/main/python-wget/python-wget.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Nycticoraci/FriendlyFedora/main/python-wget/python-wget-3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Koji URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66372744 Implemented fixes; Most repository lead back to that URL but the source file can be found: https://pypi.org/project/wget/#files
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Sorry for missing this being updated. The changes to the spec look good - package approved.
Package was never imported. The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.