Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vecrec.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-vecrec-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This package provides 2D vector and rectangle classes. These classes were written to be used in games, so they have some methods that conveniently tie into pyglet and pygame, but for the most part they are quite general and could be used for almost anything. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a dependency for python-glooey. Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78911398 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78911555 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=78911849 This is a trivial pure-Python package.
Trivial improvements to the spec file. New spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211212/python-vecrec.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/21211212/python-vecrec-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
Looks like the last SRPM URL is broken, taking instead: Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211212/python-vecrec.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211212/python-vecrec-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
Aside from the %license which needs to be clarified, all good. 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. [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. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [x]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/v/vecrec/vecrec-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7781b900a02ad4def8a53cd3bb96cd15d65bbde420503863bb3c2e4fbaaf36be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7781b900a02ad4def8a53cd3bb96cd15d65bbde420503863bb3c2e4fbaaf36be Requires -------- python3-vecrec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-vecrec: python-vecrec python3-vecrec python3.10-vecrec python3.10dist(vecrec) python3dist(vecrec) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2023407 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts, C/C++, R, Perl, Ruby, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Repository requested. Regarding the license file—specifically, the status quo in which the license file is marked %license by %pyproject_save_files but resides in the dist-info directory rather than in /usr/share/licenses, and the question of whether it should be additionally installed in /usr/share/licenses—Miro Hrončok responded to my query on the packaging mailing list[1] agreeing that license files do not have to be installed in /usr/share/licenses, referencing an earlier thread on the same list[2] in which Jason L Tibbits III said he knew of no such requirement. Since Miro and Jason are both current FPC members, I think this is a reasonably conclusive answer to the question of whether the additional “%license …” is required. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CQX3A7LKXYODXDSR2KZOBNM2CRNN2AYS/ [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-vecrec
FEDORA-2021-272766e5d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-272766e5d1
FEDORA-2021-272766e5d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-2369a05692 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2369a05692
FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e6c5a03bd3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e6c5a03bd3
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4c381e0d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4c381e0d5
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e53c3c1910 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e53c3c1910
FEDORA-2021-2369a05692 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-2021-2369a05692 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2369a05692 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4c381e0d5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4c381e0d5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e53c3c1910 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e53c3c1910 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e6c5a03bd3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e6c5a03bd3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-2369a05692 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4c381e0d5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e6c5a03bd3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-f393ec69f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e53c3c1910 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.