Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-scantree/python-scantree.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-scantree/python-scantree-0.0.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Recursive directory iterator supporting: - flexible filtering including wildcard path matching - in memory representation of file-tree (for repeated access) - efficient access to directory entry properties (posix.DirEntry interface) extended with real path and path relative to the recursion root directory - detection and handling of cyclic symlinks Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: rawhide f36 f35 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90146441 Thanks!
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed This package looks good and I'll go ahead and approve, but I'd recommend converting it to use pyproject-rpm-macros if you have time. It will help you automatically generate build requirements and automatically include the relevant files in the RPM without specifying them manually. I'm happy to send over a PR after you import the RPM if you wish. Also, the upstream repository had some commits in 2019 and a few more in 2021. It's not clear who is actively maintaining it upstream. 🤔 ===== 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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-scantree/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]: 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: [!]: 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. [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/andhus/scantree/archive/v0.0.1/scantree-0.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 456ce9951cd1e2cbb416c2e5a9e3963df9692f575dc45680cd1a1722a8449435 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 456ce9951cd1e2cbb416c2e5a9e3963df9692f575dc45680cd1a1722a8449435 Requires -------- python3-scantree (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(attrs) python3.11dist(pathspec) python3.11dist(six) Provides -------- python3-scantree: python-scantree python3-scantree python3.11-scantree python3.11dist(scantree) python3dist(scantree) 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-scantree --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, R, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the really fast review! I converted the package to use pyproject-rpm-macros: Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-scantree/python-scantree.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-scantree/python-scantree-0.0.1-2.fc37.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90151552 One question: the package installs a LICENSE file to the dist-info directory. Should I omit '%license LICENSE' in that case?
(In reply to Scott K Logan from comment #2) > Thanks for the really fast review! > > I converted the package to use pyproject-rpm-macros: > Spec URL: > https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-scantree/python-scantree.spec Great work! > One question: the package installs a LICENSE file to the dist-info > directory. Should I omit '%license LICENSE' in that case? You can leave the %license line there if you want to be extra explicit, but pyproject-rpm-macros will pick up that license file for you automatically. I usually leave it out to keep the spec a bit shorter.
FEDORA-2022-33516f6728 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-33516f6728
FEDORA-2022-33516f6728 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ea28db9527 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea28db9527
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-392c2048b8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-392c2048b8
FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d
FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ea28db9527 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-ea28db9527 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ea28db9527 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-392c2048b8 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-2022-392c2048b8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-dac056f82d has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-392c2048b8 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-ea28db9527 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.