Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-env.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-env-0.6.1^20170608git8f5339a-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: This is a py.test plugin that enables you to set environment variables in the pytest.ini file. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84643801 F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84643807 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84643808
This is another new dependency for python-aws-sam-translator 0.43.0. The following existing packages patch it out in their spec files, and may or may not benefit from adding it back once it is packaged; I will check, and submit PR’s as appropriate. - bst-external - buildstream - pre-commit - python-pynamodb
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (ignore -- rpm-autospec is okay) ✅ Approved. I wish upstream had tests. 😢 ===== 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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-pytest-env/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. [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. [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: [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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/MobileDynasty/pytest-env/archive/8f5339a2819678eab5c4f9aaa02c658b8ffa33fa/pytest-env-8f5339a2819678eab5c4f9aaa02c658b8ffa33fa.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 69b4d24980841c37d3b77ed53b121e550f0af2275f1d3dd6e86b66a22922161d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 69b4d24980841c37d3b77ed53b121e550f0af2275f1d3dd6e86b66a22922161d Requires -------- python3-pytest-env (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(pytest) Provides -------- python3-pytest-env: python-pytest-env python3-pytest-env python3.10-pytest-env python3.10dist(pytest-env) python3dist(pytest-env) 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-pytest-env --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Repo requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-env
FEDORA-2022-6ae6ab4478 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6ae6ab4478
FEDORA-2022-6ae6ab4478 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-13889fc4cd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-13889fc4cd
FEDORA-2022-ff2996c093 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ff2996c093
FEDORA-2022-87985f6a4d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-87985f6a4d
FEDORA-2022-13889fc4cd 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-2022-13889fc4cd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-13889fc4cd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-73a387efba has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-73a387efba
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e0baea3c8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e0baea3c8b
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24d03ea25e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24d03ea25e
FEDORA-2022-87985f6a4d 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-2022-87985f6a4d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-87985f6a4d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ff2996c093 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-ff2996c093 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ff2996c093 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24d03ea25e 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-2022-24d03ea25e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-73a387efba 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-2022-73a387efba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e0baea3c8b 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-2022-e0baea3c8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-13889fc4cd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ff2996c093 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-87985f6a4d has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e0baea3c8b 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-2022-73a387efba has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-24d03ea25e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.