Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-overpy/main/python-overpy.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-overpy/raw/main/python-overpy-0.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: overpy is a wrapper written in Python to access the Overpass API. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
- The URL is missing the repo name: URL: https://github.com/DinoTools/python-overpy Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Build the docs with Sphinx - Include the examples/ in %doc - %{python3} -m pytest -> %pytest Not much time for Fedora these days, I'll be mostly be available on the weekend.
- Source0 should be: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{github_name}-%{version}.tar.gz 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. [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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-overpy/review- python-overpy/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 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]: 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 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 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. [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]: 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-overpy-0.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-overpy-0.6-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Thank you very much for another review. Revision is Online: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-overpy/main/python-overpy.spec Koji scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67552608
This is not fixed: - The URL is still missing the repo name: URL: https://github.com/DinoTools/python-overpy - You've built the docs but you haven't installed them in %doc
Thanks again. Fixed now. SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-overpy/main/python-overpy.spec
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-overpy
FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4
FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1
FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc
FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-eaa42b6dc4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-d0c17c4fa1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-8ff33f79bc has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.