Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer-0.3.2-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Typer is a library for building CLI applications that users will love using and developers will love creating. Based on Python 3.6+ type hints. The key features are: • Intuitive to write: Great editor support. Completion everywhere. Less time debugging. Designed to be easy to use and learn. Less time reading docs. • Easy to use: It’s easy to use for the final users. Automatic help, and automatic completion for all shells. • Short: Minimize code duplication. Multiple features from each parameter declaration. Fewer bugs. • Start simple: The simplest example adds only 2 lines of code to your app: 1 import, 1 function call. • Grow large: Grow in complexity as much as you want, create arbitrarily complex trees of commands and groups of subcommands, with options and arguments. Typer is FastAPI’s little sibling. And it’s intended to be the FastAPI of CLIs. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68752443 F33 and F34 are planned once BR python-markdown-include reaches stable. (A local mock build with --enablerepo=updates-testing does work for these two releases.)
Found bundled js-termynal after submitting this issue. Setting NEEDINFO until I correct it.
I’ve now unbundled js-termynal. Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer-0.3.2-2.fc35.src.rpm Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68756289
- There is already a review started here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941294 Please try to contact the reporter to ask him to either finish the Keview Request or relinquish it. Block FE-DEADREVIEW if there is no answer and mark it as Duplicate of this bug. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras/Policy/StalledReviews Please also propose your help to fix the other reporter SPEC. 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". 360 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-typer2/review- python-typer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-typer (description) [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-typer [?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-typer-0.3.2-2.fc35.noarch.rpm python-typer-doc-0.3.2-2.fc35.noarch.rpm python-typer-0.3.2-2.fc35.src.rpm python3-typer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommands -> sub commands, sub-commands, commands python3-typer.noarch: W: no-documentation python-typer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subcommands -> sub commands, sub-commands, commands 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Good catch! I will follow up in the other review request.
This is a note that, if the other packager decides not to continue with their review request, I will be patching out the mkdocs-material documentation dependency as I have recently done in other packages, because mkdocs-material has problems with pre-complied/pre-minified web assets that I believe cannot be remedied (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960274#c3).
After I contacted the submitter of the previous review request and offered my help (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941294#c6), they elected to close the previous issue as WONTFIX and encourage me to continue with this review. Would you mind finishing the review? Thanks!
*** Bug 1941294 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package approved.
Thanks! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-typer
FEDORA-2021-4ca2a91781 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4ca2a91781
FEDORA-2021-821757ca3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-821757ca3b
FEDORA-2021-4ca2a91781 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-2021-4ca2a91781 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4ca2a91781 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-821757ca3b 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-2021-821757ca3b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-821757ca3b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4ca2a91781 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-821757ca3b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.