I want to volunteer for the maintenance of the python-hashids package in Fedora. Hashids is a small open-source library that generates short, unique, non-sequential ids from numbers. It converts numbers like 347 into strings like “yr8”, or array of numbers like [27, 986] into “3kTMd”. SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pszubiak/python-hashids/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04451062-python-hashids/python-hashids.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pszubiak/python-hashids/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04451062-python-hashids/python-hashids-1.3.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Automated Fedora Review on Copr: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pszubiak/python-hashids/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04451062-python-hashids/fedora-review/review.txt (I have checked and it builds in mock)
Fix to the description and the summary of the package as in python-docstring package (Bug 2088753). SPEC: https://github.com/pszubiak/rpms/blob/76b9aec9ab7e772b5a4527f76c0c5f061f6ca1ae/python-hashids/python-hashids.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pszubiak/python-hashids/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04750168-python-hashids/python-hashids-1.3.1-2.fc38.src.rpm
I've flagged your review request as needing a sponsor per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_contributor
I've sponsored Piotr.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Package APPROVED. One small nitpick: Please use a nicer Source URL, i.e. change Source0: https://github.com/davidaurelio/hashids-python/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz to: Source0: https://github.com/davidaurelio/hashids-python/archive/v%{version}/hashids-python-%{version}.tar.gz ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- hashids/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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [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 ------- (clean) Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (clean) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/davidaurelio/hashids-python/archive/refs/tags/v1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 875ea2e674fa0b5e0cfcf337c1c73b208f6312b4751d53e38ea324ff0d739cd4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 875ea2e674fa0b5e0cfcf337c1c73b208f6312b4751d53e38ea324ff0d739cd4 Requires -------- python3-hashids (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-hashids: python-hashids python3-hashids python3.11-hashids python3.11dist(hashids) python3dist(hashids) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-hashids --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, R, Perl, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review, and sorry for the late reply. The SRPM with a fixed URL field can be found here: SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pszubiak/python-hashids/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05061994-python-hashids/python-hashids-1.3.1-3.fc38.src.rpm Let me try to build the package in Koji!
Package was never imported. The ticket status is being reset, since creating the repository will require a fresh approval. Let us know if you're still interested in this package.
Sorry again for the late reply! I was so slow that upstream of that package rebranded to sqids[1] and abandoned the maintenance of hashes. I'll try to package a new version of the software since there is no sense in adding an outdated package to Fedora. Maybe we should close that ticket and eventually open a new one for sqids if the build succeeds? [1] https://github.com/hashids
Well, it's actually good that the package was not created in Fedora, then. Yes, let's close this and you can open a new one for squids.