Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-opentype-sanitizer.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-opentype-sanitizer-8.2.1-9.fc35.src.rpm Description: Python wrapper for the OpenType Sanitizer. Fedora Account System Username: music NOTE: This review is for renaming python-ots to satisfy PyPI parity requirements[1]. It includes an upgrade path[2], and python-ots will be retired after python-opentype-sanitizer is imported. As reviewer, you must explicitly acknowledge that this is a re-review request for package renaming[3]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_parity [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/#re_review_required Koji scratch build: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82253430
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (ignore - rpmautospec is fine) - Rename looks good and the relevant Obsoletes/Provides are correct. ✅ Approved. This re-review for a package rename looks good to go. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-opentype-sanitizer/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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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: [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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/googlefonts/ots-python/archive/v8.2.1/ots-python-8.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7cfc665ea9da851d99c0d92d495e8cdb1fc6b57cf59ec794e6858a8e7892085b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7cfc665ea9da851d99c0d92d495e8cdb1fc6b57cf59ec794e6858a8e7892085b Requires -------- python3-opentype-sanitizer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-opentype-sanitizer: python-opentype-sanitizer python-ots python3-opentype-sanitizer python3-ots python3.10-opentype-sanitizer python3.10-ots python3.10dist(opentype-sanitizer) python3dist(opentype-sanitizer) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-opentype-sanitizer --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-opentype-sanitizer
Thanks for the review!
FEDORA-2022-d322a341b5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d322a341b5
FEDORA-2022-d322a341b5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4728a6344f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4728a6344f
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4728a6344f 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-2022-4728a6344f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4728a6344f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-e3d114239b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.