Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-bdd.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-bdd-4.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: pytest-bdd implements a subset of the Gherkin language to enable automating project requirements testing and to facilitate behavioral driven development. Unlike many other BDD tools, it does not require a separate runner and benefits from the power and flexibility of pytest. It enables unifying unit and functional tests, reduces the burden of continuous integration server configuration and allows the reuse of test setups. Pytest fixtures written for unit tests can be reused for setup and actions mentioned in feature steps with dependency injection. This allows a true BDD just-enough specification of the requirements without maintaining any context object containing the side effects of Gherkin imperative declarations. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081536 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081709 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081777 This is a new build dependency for “jrnl”. Notes on rpmlint output: > python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv > python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv This is not really a text file, but there’s enough text in it that rpmlint incorrectly detects it as one. > python-pytest-bdd.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog This is because rpmlint does not yet understand rpmautospec.
Looks good, this package is approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. using autorelease, so dist tag is okay. ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 69 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/chronoelves/1988832-python-pytest- bdd/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. [-]: 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 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]: 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]: 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). [?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pytest-bdd [?]: 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-pytest-bdd-4.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-pytest-bdd-doc-4.1.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-pytest-bdd-4.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv python-pytest-bdd.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest-bdd/archive/4.1.0/pytest-bdd-4.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 875a7d68b5324707c32ba955e259d5c779d7b43a420c449e090304de97377360 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 875a7d68b5324707c32ba955e259d5c779d7b43a420c449e090304de97377360 Requires -------- python3-pytest-bdd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(glob2) python3.10dist(mako) python3.10dist(parse) python3.10dist(parse-type) python3.10dist(py) python3.10dist(pytest) python-pytest-bdd-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pytest-bdd: python-pytest-bdd python3-pytest-bdd python3.10-pytest-bdd python3.10dist(pytest-bdd) python3dist(pytest-bdd) python-pytest-bdd-doc: python-pytest-bdd-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1988832 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-bdd
Thanks for the review!
FEDORA-2021-949de57a23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-949de57a23
FEDORA-2021-1ceffed98b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1ceffed98b
FEDORA-2021-1ceffed98b 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-2021-1ceffed98b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1ceffed98b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-949de57a23 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-2021-949de57a23 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-949de57a23 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-949de57a23 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-1ceffed98b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.