Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/italomg/python-pyvat/7590f942f89d2e3f738151717a2b9796fc51f1fa/python-pyvat.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/italomg/python-pyvat/releases/download/v1.0.0/python-pyvat-1.3.15-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Packaging pyvat in an RPM. Pyvat is a Python library for calculating VAT Fedora Account System Username: italomga
I will sponsor italomga
APPROVED, provided the Source0 is updated as shown below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed please change Source0 to use a proper generated filename: Source0: https://github.com/%{owner}/%{sname}/archive/v%{version}/%{sname}-%{version}.tar.gz [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. This is justified via comment in the spec file ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2109069-python- pyvat/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. [-]: 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: [-]: 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 [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). [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. [!]: %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 ------- rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 ==================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ==================================== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/iconfinder/pyvat/archive/refs/tags/v1.3.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47265b18ea78cbc05216732ea51e4e62e097447d716652461d36803fd355ee0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47265b18ea78cbc05216732ea51e4e62e097447d716652461d36803fd355ee0f Requires -------- python3-pyvat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(requests) >= 1) python(abi) python3.11dist(pycountry) Provides -------- python3-pyvat: python-pyvat python3-pyvat python3.11-pyvat python3.11dist(pyvat) python3dist(pyvat) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2109069 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Unofficial review: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/python-pyvat/2109069-python- pyvat/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: [-]: 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 [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. [?]: 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]: 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/iconfinder/pyvat/archive/refs/tags/v1.3.15.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47265b18ea78cbc05216732ea51e4e62e097447d71 6652461d36803fd355ee0f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47265b18ea78cbc05216732ea51e4e62e097447d71 6652461d36803fd355ee0f Requires -------- python3-pyvat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(requests) >= 1) python(abi) python3.11dist(pycountry) Provides -------- python3-pyvat: python-pyvat python3-pyvat python3.11-pyvat python3.11dist(pyvat) python3dist(pyvat) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2109069 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Java, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH rpmlint ./python-pyvat-1.3.15-1.fc35.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.9 s Check versioned requires and provides $ rpm -qRp python3-pyvat-1.3.15-1.fc37.noarch.rpm (python3.11dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(requests) >= 1) python(abi) = 3.11 python3.11dist(pycountry) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1 rpmlib(RichDependencies) <= 4.12.0-1 rpmlib(TildeInVersions) <= 4.10.0-1 $ rpm -qPp python3-pyvat-1.3.15-1.fc37.noarch.rpm python-pyvat = 1.3.15-1.fc37 python3-pyvat = 1.3.15-1.fc37 python3.11-pyvat = 1.3.15-1.fc37 python3.11dist(pyvat) = 1.3.15 python3dist(pyvat) = 1.3.15 Comments: a) In the spec file: Ptyhon 2 versions -> with Python 2 versions b) License will appear twice in usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/pyvat-1.3.15.dist-info usr/share/licenses/python3-pyvat Remove %license LICENSE c) Any chance the pull request https://github.com/iconfinder/pyvat/pull/54 will be merged soon? Alternatively can a simple test be added? d) Perhaps put a build on COPR/Koji
I made changes to the spec according to the comments, so now source0 should as expected, also the typo and the unnecessary %license directive were fixed. It would be great if that PR got merged, I left a comment there. Regarding "Perhaps put a build on COPR/Koji" I am not familiar with the process of uploading a package to Fedora :) I suppose there will be a CI/CD of sorts at some point. Is this the same as the mentioned COPR/Koji or is that kind of "optional"? Maybe my question is, if I setup a test pipeline in COPR/Koji will it be of use afterwards or will it be for this one time only?
Getting a build on Copr/Koji allows testing that of different architectures. Copr is a little easier to setup. See https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/copr/copr-cli.html
Perhaps also change "intentially removed" to just "removed".
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyvat
FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf
FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fbc10afecf has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.