Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-typer-cli-0.0.11-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Run Typer scripts with completion, without having to create a package, using Typer CLI. There is an optional utility tool called Typer CLI, additional to Typer itself. Its main feature is to provide ✨ completion ✨ in the Terminal for your own small programs built with Typer. …without you having to create a complete installable Python package. It’s probably most useful if you have a small custom Python script using Typer (maybe as part of some project), for some small tasks, and it’s not complex/important enough to create a whole installable Python package for it (something to be installed with pip). In that case, you can install Typer CLI, and run your program with the typer command in your Terminal, and it will provide completion for your script. You can also use Typer CLI to generate Markdown documentation for your own Typer programs 📝. Documentation: https://typer.tiangolo.com/typer-cli/ Source Code for Typer CLI: https://github.com/tiangolo/typer-cli Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70493695 (F34 and F33 are planned after dependency python-typer reaches stable there.)
- Bump to 0.0.12 Package approved. 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". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-typer-cli/review- python-typer-cli/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 20480 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: 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 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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-cli-0.0.11-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-typer-cli-0.0.11-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-typer-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable python-typer-cli.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install able, install-able, uninstallable python-typer-cli.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{srcname}-0.0.11-no-importlib_metadata.patch 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Also your help on Package Reviews is highly appreciated.
> Also your help on Package Reviews is highly appreciated. You certainly carry a heavy share of the package reviews, so I’m glad my efforts are helpful! ----- I’ve requested the repository and will update to 0.0.12 and build the package for F33 and F34; a successful F35/Rawhide build will have to wait on a resolution to recently-introduced dependency problems (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977513), but I plan to handle those one way or another in time for F35.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-typer-cli
FEDORA-2021-4c5fbef041 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4c5fbef041
FEDORA-2021-0a17565ef8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0a17565ef8
FEDORA-2021-4c5fbef041 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-2021-4c5fbef041 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4c5fbef041 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-0a17565ef8 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-2021-0a17565ef8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0a17565ef8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-4c5fbef041 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-0a17565ef8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.