Spec URL: https://v02460.fedorapeople.org/python-matrix-common.spec SRPM URL: https://v02460.fedorapeople.org/python-matrix-common-1.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Common functionality for multiple projects in the Matrix ecosystem. This dependency will be required by the upcoming v1.50 release of matrix-synapse. Fedora Account System Username: V02460
Notes ===== > URL: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-python-common I would use %{releasename} instead of `matrix-python-common`. > %pyproject_save_files %{pymodulename} If you are only going to use `%{pymodulename}` once, I'm not sure that it makes sense to define it as a macro; it makes the spec less readable. This is really up to you, though. You should also add `sed -i 's/python/%{python3}/' tox.ini` in `%prep` so that the tox env uses the correct, versioned python path. You can fix that on import. Package approved. When you import this package, don't forget to add `Fixes rhbz#2038993` to the rpm changelog and/or manually add this bug to the Bodhi update so it gets marked as CLOSED. You should also add this package to release-monitoring,org. Please let me know if you need help doing that. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2038993-python-matrix- common/licensecheck.txt [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 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-python-common/archive/v1.0.0/matrix-common-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d610357a78caf5141814f055e8b3facabf4dd4863db8594030d58c81b2b2b7fd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d610357a78caf5141814f055e8b3facabf4dd4863db8594030d58c81b2b2b7fd Requires -------- python3-matrix-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(attrs) Provides -------- python3-matrix-common: python-matrix-common python3-matrix-common python3.10-matrix-common python3.10dist(matrix-common) python3dist(matrix-common) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2038993 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Java, fonts, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity D
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-matrix-common
Hi Maxwell, thank you for your review! 👍 I changed the URL, but kept the macro. Running tests was broken in the posted version, so I fixed that. FYI, the suggested sed is not necessary as the %tox macro takes care of using the right python version already (by symlinking).
FEDORA-2022-2c1c72f751 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2c1c72f751
FEDORA-2022-2c1c72f751 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0f27df331d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0f27df331d
FEDORA-2022-7ae8847192 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7ae8847192
FEDORA-2022-7ae8847192 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-2022-7ae8847192 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7ae8847192 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-0f27df331d 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-2022-0f27df331d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0f27df331d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-7ae8847192 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-0f27df331d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.