Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pyedflib/main/python-pyedflib.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pyedflib/raw/main/python-pyedflib-0.1.22-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: pyEDFlib is a python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files based on EDFlib. EDF means European Data Format and was firstly published Kemp1992. In 2003, an improved version of the file protokoll named EDF+ has been published and can be found at Kemp2003. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
This is a clean package with a just a few remaining issues to look at. Please let me know which way you want to go with the documentation. I’m happy to demonstrate how to get it working. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Some issues with Sphinx-generated HTML documentation regarding bundled and minified web assets have been identified that make it unsuitable for packaging (even though there is a long history of doing so in Fedora). See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for details and discussion. Given this, you have two reasonable options: - Don’t package the Sphinx-generated documentation at all - Build a PDF, which is probably acceptable, rather than HTML. If you want to go with PDF documentation, let me know and I’ll be happy to make and upload a version of the spec that builds it. You can look at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-engineio/blob/rawhide/f/python-engineio.spec for an example. Currently, you have the documentation disabled because of a “configuration error,” which happens because the copy of the package imported during the documentation build is the one in the source tree, and that copy doesn’t have the compiled extension module. There are several ways to fix this, which I’m happy to demonstrate if you plan to keep the documentation. - Upstream *does* provide tests, and you can run them. The easiest approach is to change %pyproject_buildrequires -r to %pyproject_buildrequires -t and # Upstream provides no tests %pyproject_check_import to %tox - There is a stray German word in the description copied from upstream. Please change “protokoll” to “protocol”. I have sent a PR upstream for this: https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/pull/146 - Conventionally, the summary should not repeat the package name and should not end with a dot or period. Consider: Summary: Python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files, based on EDFlib ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. OK: properly-installed compiled Python extenson module [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2021429-python- pyedflib/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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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: [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-pyedflib [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream *does* provide tests [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyedflib: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/archive/v0.1.22/pyedflib-0.1.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31bfea237fa36e60f9516e2ac2db6cb5ed479f9c6e15052c02a67a38f8744727 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31bfea237fa36e60f9516e2ac2db6cb5ed479f9c6e15052c02a67a38f8744727 Requires -------- python3-pyedflib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.10dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-pyedflib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pyedflib: python-pyedflib python3-pyedflib python3-pyedflib(x86-64) python3.10-pyedflib python3.10dist(pyedflib) python3dist(pyedflib) python-pyedflib-debugsource: python-pyedflib-debugsource python-pyedflib-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2021429 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 5 python3-pyedflib-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so-0.1.22-1.fc36.x86_64.debug python3-pyedflib.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized pyedflib is a python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files based on EDFlib. python-pyedflib.src: W: summary-not-capitalized pyedflib is a python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files based on EDFlib. python3-pyedflib.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot pyedflib is a python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files based on EDFlib. python-pyedflib.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot pyedflib is a python library to read/write EDF+/BDF+ files based on EDFlib. python3-pyedflib-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.cpython-310-x86_64-linux-gnu.so-0.1.22-1.fc36.x86_64.debug python3-pyedflib-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-pyedflib-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation python-pyedflib.spec:83: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog python-pyedflib.spec:83: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog python3-pyedflib-debuginfo.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/7e/c41da9a4364d46d7d633bccf78b24d040ec99e ../../../.build-id/7e/c41da9a4364d46d7d633bccf78b24d040ec99e 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Ben, Thank you very much for a quick check. I am happy with documentation in PDF. Are you going to submit a PR to my repo?
I can upload a modified spec file here for you to examine and incorporate, or I can approve without documentation (but after the other issue I noted are fixed), and offer a PR later. Which would you prefer?
I have already committed a revision. Please take a look: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pyedflib/commit/9aac7aec444f3a7f150b5b60986f7166da79895e However, build on s390 is failing due to the tests: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78702562 Shall we disable specific test? I prefer that you approve a SPEC file without documentation and later submit a PR to the rpms repo. What do you think?
(In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #4) > I have already committed a revision. Please take a look: > https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pyedflib/commit/ > 9aac7aec444f3a7f150b5b60986f7166da79895e > > However, build on s390 is failing due to the tests: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78702562 > > Shall we disable specific test? Maybe. Or, the problem might be serious enough that the architecture should be excluded (which is still possible in a noarch package). I haven’t looked closely at the problem yet. I suspect this is a byte order issue, since s390x is the only big-endian architecture in Fedora. The best answer would be to fix the actual problem and send a patch upstream. I’ll attempt that, but it might take me a few days to get around to it. > I prefer that you approve a SPEC file without documentation and later submit > a PR to the rpms repo. What do you think? Works for me!
I have found that the “edflib” C sources in this project are actually bundled from a separate project (https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib/). That means we’ll need to follow the bundling guidelines (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling). I haven’t figured out yet whether it’s possible to build the Python package with an unbundled, separately-packaged edflib. I’d like to do that if it’s at all practical. Also, the byte-order issues seem to be in edflib. My quick research suggests that the EDF format is always little-endian, and edflib appears to be oblivious to endianness issues, so ExcludeArch: s390x may be required. Or, it may be possible to produce a reasonably-scoped patch. I will investigate further as I have time.
Ben, thanks for info and all the hard work. There is no time pressure, just take your time.
Upstream EDFlib issue for big-endian support: https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib/-/issues/9 Upstream EDFlib merge request for big-endian support: https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib/-/merge_requests/1 Review request for separately-packaged edflib (with big-endian patch): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2023556 ---- I think unbundling to use a separate edflib will be possible with a small patch to pyedflib”s setup.py, and that will be the easiest way to get working big-endian support. When I have a chance to work on this a bit more, I’ll work up a patch to (optionally) do that and offer it to the pyedflib upstream.
Ok, I’ve sent a PR upstream to support a system copy of EDFlib: https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/pull/150 One way to reference it is: > Patch1: %{url}/pull/150.patch Also, upstream has released a new version, 0.1.23. That’s almost enough to prepare an updated submission with the new upstream version and the patch. You will need to add a BR on edflib-devel, “export SYSTEM_EDFLIB=1” before calling %pyproject_wheel, and “rm -rf pyedflib/_extensions/c” in %prep to verify the bundled library is not used. However, I think another patch will be needed for compatibility with the latest version of edflib: > pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.c: In function ‘__pyx_pf_8pyedflib_11_extensions_9_pyedflib_11CyEdfReader_8open’: > pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.c:5196:20: error: too many arguments to function ‘edfopen_file_readonly’ > 5196 | __pyx_v_result = edfopen_file_readonly(__pyx_t_3, (&__pyx_v_self->hdr), __pyx_t_4, __pyx_t_5); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In file included from pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.c:657: > /usr/include/edflib.h:204:5: note: declared here > 204 | int edfopen_file_readonly(const char *path, struct edf_hdr_struct *edfhdr, int read_annotations); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I’ll take a look at that next.
It turns out that: - pyedflib actually uses a slightly forked version of EDFlib - EDFlib upstream has decided not to support big-endian architectures I will keep the separate edflib package working on s390x, I think, but porting an edflib patch to the forked version here and testing it adequately seems tedious and perhaps error-prone. I think your best approach may be: > # Uses a forked copy of EDFlib (https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib), which has > # elected not to support big-endian architectures. > ExcludeArch: s390x > > # Uses a forked copy of EDFlib (https://gitlab.com/Teuniz/EDFlib) > # https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/issues/149 > # Version number: pyedflib/_extensions/c/edflib.c, EDFLIB_VERSION > Provides: bundled(edflib) = 1.17 Then after import, per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures, file an RHBZ issue blocking F-ExcludeArch-s390x with the explanation from the comment above the ExcludeArch, and replace or augment that spec file comment with a link to the issue.
Thanks very much for all the hard work. Final spec file is online: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-pyedflib/main/python-pyedflib.spec Fresh koji build without s390x architecture: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79105173
Thanks. Would you mind updating to the current upstream release 0.1.23 and posting the SRPM with the spec file?
I think we can do it later. New release does not include any major algorithmic changes.
(In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #13) > I think we can do it later. New release does not include any major > algorithmic changes. Well, I guess so. I reviewed the spec file from your link together with the source RPM from the koji build. The package is APPROVED. Expect a PR to add PDF documentation after import, and please remember to file an RHBZ issue for the ExcludeArch as required by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes (no change required) ===== - Version 0.1.23 is available. Expect a PR after import. - This is not needed: BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros The python3-devel package now depends on pyproject-rpm-macros on all supported Fedora releases. - Expect a PR to convert to PDF documentation and enable the -doc subpackage. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. Unversioned .so file is a correctly-packaged compiled Python extension. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/pyedflib/review-python- pyedflib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled, slightly forked edflib is correctly handled. Upstream is considering making the fork features optional and allowing a system library: https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/issues/149, https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/pull/150#issuecomment-974716280 [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ExcludeArch is correctly handled. Remember to file an RHBZ issue after import. [-]: 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: [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-pyedflib [x]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [!]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ExcludeArch is correctly handled. Remember to file an RHBZ issue after import. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyedflib: /usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/pyedflib/_extensions/_pyedflib.cpython-310-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/holgern/pyedflib/archive/v0.1.22/pyedflib-0.1.22.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 31bfea237fa36e60f9516e2ac2db6cb5ed479f9c6e15052c02a67a38f8744727 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 31bfea237fa36e60f9516e2ac2db6cb5ed479f9c6e15052c02a67a38f8744727 Requires -------- python3-pyedflib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.10dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-pyedflib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pyedflib: python-pyedflib python3-pyedflib python3-pyedflib(aarch-64) python3.10-pyedflib python3.10dist(pyedflib) python3dist(pyedflib) python-pyedflib-debugsource: python-pyedflib-debugsource python-pyedflib-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-pyedflib Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks Ben, requesting repo now.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyedflib