Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

- Fix rpmlint warning summary-ended-with-dot 

- You don't need below lines as you already have "BuildArch:      noarch"
  # Package does not provide debug info
  %global debug_package %{nil}

- local definition of using the updated rpmautospec macro is not needed now as I see python-rpmautospec-0.3.0 is already built for F35+ and EPEL9 releases.

- For %check if there are not tests then you can add %pyproject_check_import to test that installed modules are importable
  This is described in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_check_import

===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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]: 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.
[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.
[!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== 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)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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

python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins.
python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyMunin3/PyMunin3-3.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 51d5711fae130f12ce1b87b62a204bd844f09e24d19dfe0ad8448cf2da3d440e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51d5711fae130f12ce1b87b62a204bd844f09e24d19dfe0ad8448cf2da3d440e


Requires
--------
python3-PyMunin3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-PyMunin3:
    python-PyMunin3
    python3-PyMunin3
    python3.11-PyMunin3
    python3.11dist(pymunin3)
    python3dist(pymunin3)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2123954 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you for the review.

I revised the spec file:

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04809614-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04809614-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3-3.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1)
> Issues:
> =======
> - Dist tag is present.

I've got no clue what that means.

> - Fix rpmlint warning summary-ended-with-dot

I removed the trailing dot.

> - You don't need below lines as you already have "BuildArch:      noarch"
>   # Package does not provide debug info
>   %global debug_package %{nil}

Hmm. Without it my local mock build fails with:

> - local definition of using the updated rpmautospec macro is not needed now
> as I see python-rpmautospec-0.3.0 is already built for F35+ and EPEL9
> releases.

The spec file I linked is from Copr, which expands %{autorelease} and puts that in the spec file. I can upload my original spec file if needed.

> - For %check if there are not tests then you can add %pyproject_check_import
> to test that installed modules are importable
>   This is described in
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #pyproject_check_import

Thanks. I added the macro and the import check succeeds.

> python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0

I changed it to "GPL-3.0-only" as per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

Now, what's still missing is a fancy README file. ;-)

(In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
> > - You don't need below lines as you already have "BuildArch:      noarch"
> >   # Package does not provide debug info
> >   %global debug_package %{nil}
> 
> Hmm. Without it my local mock build fails with:

error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/PyMunin3-3.0.1/debugsourcefiles.list

(In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
> > Issues:
> > =======
> > - Dist tag is present.
> 
> I've got no clue what that means.

  I think this is related to rpmautospec. No change is required then if you continue using %autorelease

> 
> > - You don't need below lines as you already have "BuildArch:      noarch"
> >   # Package does not provide debug info
> >   %global debug_package %{nil}
> 
> Hmm. Without it my local mock build fails with:

Okay then you can keep it in spec file but I will be interested in finding why it is required?
Only few Fedora python* packages needed to add "%global debug_package %{nil}"

> > - local definition of using the updated rpmautospec macro is not needed now
> > as I see python-rpmautospec-0.3.0 is already built for F35+ and EPEL9
> > releases.
> 
> The spec file I linked is from Copr, which expands %{autorelease} and puts
> that in the spec file. I can upload my original spec file if needed.
> 

Can you upload original spec file?

> > python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0
> 
> I changed it to "GPL-3.0-only" as per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

Thanks

> 
> Now, what's still missing is a fancy README file. ;-)

Sure :)

Created attachment 1909951 [details]
original spec file

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #4)
> (In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
> > > Issues:
> > > =======
> > > - Dist tag is present.
> > 
> > I've got no clue what that means.
> 
>   I think this is related to rpmautospec. No change is required then if you
> continue using %autorelease

I thought so, too, but wasn't sure.

> > > - You don't need below lines as you already have "BuildArch:      noarch"
> > >   # Package does not provide debug info
> > >   %global debug_package %{nil}
> > 
> > Hmm. Without it my local mock build fails with:
> >
> > error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/PyMunin3-3.0.1/debugsourcefiles.list
> 
> Okay then you can keep it in spec file but I will be interested in finding
> why it is required?
> Only few Fedora python* packages needed to add "%global debug_package %{nil}"

Makes me feel like I hit the jackpot. ;)
 
> > > - local definition of using the updated rpmautospec macro is not needed now
> > > as I see python-rpmautospec-0.3.0 is already built for F35+ and EPEL9
> > > releases.
> > 
> > The spec file I linked is from Copr, which expands %{autorelease} and puts
> > that in the spec file. I can upload my original spec file if needed.
> > 
> 
> Can you upload original spec file?

I stapled it to this bug.

> > > python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0
> > 
> > I changed it to "GPL-3.0-only" as per
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/
> 
> Thanks

I like the fact that Copr is able to run fedora-review. Should have used that on my initial release...

Can you give full URL so that I can use fedora-review on this review bug?

Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/penguinpee/6e868b0fed358d4637a311b7e8331f27/raw/9ea0fc6060e3cf485464350528dccd05f199d4a6/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/04809614-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3-3.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm

fedora-review output says

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm/python-PyMunin3.spec	2022-09-08 15:58:56.025887208 +0530
+++ /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm-unpacked/python-PyMunin3.spec	2022-09-05 21:03:54.000000000 +0530
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # Package does not provide any tests
 %bcond_with tests
@@ -11,5 +20,5 @@
 Version:        3.0.1
 Release:        %{autorelease}
-Summary:        Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins
+Summary:        Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins.
 
 License:        GPL-3.0-only
@@ -59,3 +68,12 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Sep 05 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-2
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Mon Sep 05 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-1
+- Fix rpmlint warning and add import test
+- Fix summary-ended-with-dot
+- Add %%pyproject_check_import
+
+* Sat Sep 03 2022 Sandro <devel> Packaging variables read or set by %forgemeta-1
+- Initial package


Please provide updated SRPM as well. SPEC file and same SPEC file in SRPM.

Do you have anymore packages submitted for review? or done any other unofficial full package review?

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #8)
> fedora-review output says
> 
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
> ---------------------------------
> --- /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm/python-PyMunin3.spec	2022-09-08
> 15:58:56.025887208 +0530
> +++ /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm-unpacked/python-PyMunin3.spec
> 2022-09-05 21:03:54.000000000 +0530
> @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
> +## START: Set by rpmautospec
> +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
> +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
> +    release_number = 2;
> +    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
> +    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
> +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
> +## END: Set by rpmautospec
> +

This is what rpmautospec puts in the file once it is processed by Copr/Koji.

>  %bcond_with tests
> @@ -11,5 +20,5 @@
>  Version:        3.0.1
>  Release:        %{autorelease}
> -Summary:        Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins
> +Summary:        Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins.

I removed the trailing dot after I had it rebuild. I can put it back in. But I think it should be dropped just like in the description.

>  License:        GPL-3.0-only
> @@ -59,3 +68,12 @@
>  
>  %changelog
> -%autochangelog
> +* Mon Sep 05 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-2
> +- Uncommitted changes
> +
> +* Mon Sep 05 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-1
> +- Fix rpmlint warning and add import test
> +- Fix summary-ended-with-dot
> +- Add %%pyproject_check_import
> +
> +* Sat Sep 03 2022 Sandro <devel> Packaging variables read or
> set by %forgemeta-1
> +- Initial package

Again, this is the processing of the %autochangelog tag. Looks a bit messy, I agree. But the first official release (-1) will only have the "Inital package" entry. Or I could change that to "Initial release" as is commonly done. The entries are taken from the git commit messages.

> Please provide updated SRPM as well. SPEC file and same SPEC file in SRPM.

If that is really required, I will trigger another build this evening.

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9)
> Do you have anymore packages submitted for review? or done any other
> unofficial full package review?

No, I don't have any other packages submitted currently. For other activities see my opening comment (#c0).

Updated spec file once more and rebuilt.

Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/penguinpee/6e868b0fed358d4637a311b7e8331f27/raw/ed97d3d725dff0fd918511516448bde606aef946/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830894-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3-3.0.1-3.fc38.src.rpm

Any update on this?

Still there are no matching SPEC and SRPM links for this package review. This is what fedora-review tool gave me

Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm/python-PyMunin3.spec	2022-09-17 18:46:32.252648200 +0530
+++ /home/test/2123954-python-PyMunin3/srpm-unpacked/python-PyMunin3.spec	2022-09-09 21:44:59.000000000 +0530
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 3;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # Package does not provide any tests
 %bcond_with tests
@@ -65,3 +74,12 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Fri Sep 09 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-3
+- Extend description of package
+
+* Fri Sep 09 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-2
+- Changes after package review
+- Fix summary-ended-with-dot
+- Add %%pyproject_check_import
+
+* Sat Sep 03 2022 Sandro <devel> 3.0.1-1
+- Initial package

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #13)
> Still there are no matching SPEC and SRPM links for this package review.

I get the feeling we are running in circles. Please read my previous comments regarding use of rpm-autospec. For more information on rpm-autospec, please visit:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec

Moreover I followed the guide on how to upload the package. It mentions Copr specifically:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#upload_your_package

I have read other package reviews, where the reviewer did not take issue with the spec file provided not matching the spec file in the SRPM due to the use of rpm-autospec. Here is one example:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121114#c1

If you'd really like to use fedora-review with the spec file from the SRPM, you can extract it and instruct fedora-review to use that instead of the plain, unprocessed spec file, using the -n option.

1) I am not familiar with rpmautospec. Last time I tried to look into it, I found it frustrating to use it. Hence I am not willing to move my packages to use it till Fedora mandates it in future someday.

2) I will always prefer to see the submitted SPEC file, also included in the SRPM file. Here your SPEC is updated but not SRPM. Remember if it was reverse I would have not minded much but in the end we import SRPM when we initially add new package in Fedora.

3) Like I said I am not much aware of rpmautospec usage. I pick your SPEC that uses auto macros, build SRPM on my machine and ran a build (that uses auto macros) first time in my copr repo. I am happy that it worked fine.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pnemade/misc/build/4843654/

So why you want different SPEC file in SRPM? Or did I used your SPEC wrongly? Please check and tell me.

if I need to give copr links then they will be 
SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pnemade/misc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04843654-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pnemade/misc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04843654-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3-3.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm

I also realized below thing.
During normal package review concept, packager need to keep bumping release tag and add relevant changelog entry. But now with usage of rpmautospec macros I need to think how package review should happen. Maybe I should stop asking packager for changelog entry as there is actually no real git commits happening till package gets approved. So in the end release tag looks remain "1" irrespective of how many times SPEC gets updated.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830894-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/PyMunin3/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04830894-python-PyMunin3/python-PyMunin3-3.0.1-3.fc38.src.rpm

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #15)
> 1) I am not familiar with rpmautospec. Last time I tried to look into it, I
> found it frustrating to use it. Hence I am not willing to move my packages
> to use it till Fedora mandates it in future someday.

That's fine. Every packager gets to chose their preferred way of packaging within the boundaries of the packaging guidelines. I chose rpmautospec since it will use the git commit messages for filling the %changelog entries and take care of bumpspec. A little less work for me.
 
> 2) I will always prefer to see the submitted SPEC file, also included in the
> SRPM file. Here your SPEC is updated but not SRPM. Remember if it was
> reverse I would have not minded much but in the end we import SRPM when we
> initially add new package in Fedora.

Well, maybe that's where the confusion started. I started out with providing links to the spec file in Copr.

(In reply to Sandro from comment #5)
> > Can you upload original spec file?
> 
> I stapled it to this bug.

You commented with:

(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #6)
> Can you give full URL so that I can use fedora-review on this review bug?

So, I uploaded the original spec file on GitHub and provided the URL.

> 3) Like I said I am not much aware of rpmautospec usage. I pick your SPEC
> that uses auto macros, build SRPM on my machine and ran a build (that uses
> auto macros) first time in my copr repo. I am happy that it worked fine.
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pnemade/misc/build/4843654/

That's what I did when I first submitted this review, In fact I used Copr for every rebuild since, so the spec file and SRPM are still available in Copr (see URLs above).

> So why you want different SPEC file in SRPM? Or did I used your SPEC
> wrongly? Please check and tell me.

I don't. The original spec file (GitHub URL) is what will end up in dist-git. Copr/Koji will use that to rebuild the SRPM, which will then contain the spec file with the rpmautospec macros expanded.

> I also realized below thing.
> During normal package review concept, packager need to keep bumping release
> tag and add relevant changelog entry. But now with usage of rpmautospec
> macros I need to think how package review should happen. Maybe I should stop
> asking packager for changelog entry as there is actually no real git commits
> happening till package gets approved. So in the end release tag looks remain
> "1" irrespective of how many times SPEC gets updated.

Well, I'm using git locally for tracking changes while the package is under review. So, in my case you will see a couple of changelog entries added as I implemented changes recommended in this review. Hence the current release is 3 in Copr.

Now that we have come full circle, back to spec and SRPM as produced by Copr, fedora-review should no longer complain about differences in provided spec file and spec file extracted from SRPM. Hopefully, this will allow you to finalize the review.

Thank you for your update.

I have ran the fedora-review tool on this package. Not copying all things.

Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

=> This is expected due to usage of rpmautospec

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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

python3-PyMunin3.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0-only
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
==> This is Okay as rpmlint has not taught yet to recognize SPDX expressions


Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyMunin3/PyMunin3-3.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 51d5711fae130f12ce1b87b62a204bd844f09e24d19dfe0ad8448cf2da3d440e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51d5711fae130f12ce1b87b62a204bd844f09e24d19dfe0ad8448cf2da3d440e


Requires
--------
python3-PyMunin3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-PyMunin3:
    python-PyMunin3
    python3-PyMunin3
    python3.11-PyMunin3
    python3.11dist(pymunin3)
    python3dist(pymunin3)


This package is APPROVED.

Thank you for the review.

As mentioned in my opening comment, I'm not yet in the packagers group. Will you be able to sponsor me? Or do I need to take additional steps before I am admitted as a package maintainer?

There are 4 things given here to check https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#requirements

1) Pull-requests: you added in initial comment 2 pull-requests
2) submission of new packages: I am aware of only this 1 package submission
3) commenting on other review requests: Can you tell here which full package reviews you attempted?
4) Other contributions: I am not aware of of any such contribution from you.

Let me go through the list and supplement it were applicable.

1) I since submitted another set of pull requests [1], trying to get the maintainer to update the package for all current branches. I initially tried to pick up flare and flare-engine after they were orphaned [2], but the current maintainer, being a proven packager, beat me to it. I would still very much like to become a co-maintainer, so I can skip bothering someone else with my PRs ;)

2) That's right. I'm willing to submit another package, but it needs to be something that I have some kind of affection for and which I'm able to try out and test myself. Suggestions are welcome. meanwhile I will take a look at the wishlist of the NeuroFedora SIG [3].

3) There's the review I mentioned in comment 0 (bug 2118487). Meanwhile I commented on bug 2126145 and made the initial review of python-typepy (bug 2126738). Last but not least there's the review of python-hatch-fancy-pypi-readme (bug 2123618), of which you are undoubtedly aware of. ;) I scan the open request list regularly.

4) Well, that's the infamous miscellaneous category, to which I can add that I am the upstream maintainer of PyMunin3 as mentioned in comment 0. I also help out on #fedora, where I can and took part in the QA blocker bug review a couple of times.

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/gui1ty/requests
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GXMZPE3B6SHP22ML75ADKNGPIGVFGZR4/#5P7M6TDJ6SNZ7W6XVHRVL246HUBEKB7F
[3] https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issues?tags=S%3A+Needs+packaging&status=Open(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #19)

Thank you for your above comment and your contributions to Fedora Project.

I have sponsored you now in Fedora Packager group :)

You can check further process to request this package repository here -> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_contributor

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-PyMunin3

FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819

FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2022-8d788f1819 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.