Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fschwarz/python-zopfli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02364974-python-zopfli/python-zopfli.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fschwarz/python-zopfli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02364974-python-zopfli/python-zopfli-0.1.8-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: cPython bindings for zopfli. Fedora Account System Username: fschwarz COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fschwarz/python-zopfli/build/2364974/ This package is required for full functionality of the fonttools package (bug 1953087).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/1990762-python- zopfli/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 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]: 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]: 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: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: 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-zopfli [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- python3-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/zopfli/zopfli.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so-0.1.8-1.fc35.x86_64.debug python3-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/zopfli/zopfli.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so-0.1.8-1.fc35.x86_64.debug python3-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-zopfli-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-zopfli-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/python-zopfli-0.1.8-1.fc35.x86_64/.pyproject-builddir python-zopfli-debugsource.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/python-zopfli-0.1.8-1.fc35.x86_64/.pyproject-builddir python3-zopfli-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/15/4f525c2c51c4cb913ea26fbc9797684aa76152 ../../../.build-id/15/4f525c2c51c4cb913ea26fbc9797684aa76152 ==================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-zopfli: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/zopfli/zopfli.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/z/zopfli/zopfli-0.1.8.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b977dc07e3797907ab59e08096583bcd0b7e6c739849fbbeec09263f6356623 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b977dc07e3797907ab59e08096583bcd0b7e6c739849fbbeec09263f6356623 Requires -------- python3-zopfli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libzopfli.so.1()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-zopfli-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-zopfli: python-zopfli python3-zopfli python3-zopfli(x86-64) python3.10-zopfli python3.10dist(zopfli) python3dist(zopfli) python-zopfli-debugsource: python-zopfli-debugsource python-zopfli-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1990762 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 LGTM APPROVED
In case you want to make me co-maintainer. My FAS id is pnemade
Thank you very much.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-zopfli
package built for rawhide. I just need it for F35+ as I prefer not to update WeasyPrint in Fedora <= 34 (potentially backwards incompatible upgrade) but of course feel free to request/build the package for other branches. I thought about transferring the package to you and assigning myself as a co-maintainer. Maybe that would be a better option as zopfli is a direct dependency for fonttools? Of course I can help with python-zopfli updates or code fixes but I think you would be a better "primary point of contact" as you maintain also fonttools. If you agree I'll orphan python-zopfli so you can take over and assign me (fschwarz) as co-maintainer.
I am fine. You can orphan, I will take this package ownership. I will be happy to have you as co-maintainer for this package. Thank you.
I orphaned the package so you can become the primary maintainer :-)