Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-xdfile/python-xdfile.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-xdfile/python-xdfile-1.9.0~20220220git7bcdbe6-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This package provides a simple parser for .xd -- a corpus-oriented format, modeled after the simplicity and intuitiveness of the markdown format. It supports 99.99% of published crosswords, and is intended to be convenient for bulk analysis of crosswords by both humans and machines, from the present and into the future. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Hello Davide, thank you for the package. > %global commit 7bcdbe6810c2d69971f1a41be5d38c21a77278c7 > Version: 1.9.0~%{date}git%{shortcommit} The versioning is confusing because the VERSION file that setup.py parses, says it's 1.9.0 but the commit you are mentioning suggests, the version is 2.0 now. > # remove broken test > rm xdfile/tests/test_xdfile.py Can you please add some issue link, or any explanation indicating when should we stop removing the test? > [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > Note: Macros in: python3-xdfile (description) That's weird, I don't see any macros in the description > python3-xdfile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/xdfile/puz2xd.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 > python3-xdfile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/xdfile/ujson2xd.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > python3-xdfile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/xdfile/uxml2xd.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 > python3-xdfile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/xdfile/xdfile.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 > python3-xdfile.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/xdfile/xwordinfo2xd.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 Can you please file an issue or submit a PR fixing this?
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.
Apologies, this slipped through. I'll get it updated shortly. > The versioning is confusing because the VERSION file that setup.py > parses, says it's 1.9.0 but the commit you are mentioning suggests, > the version is 2.0 now. afaict the Python library is still versioned as 1.9.0, what's version as 2.0 is the .xd file format (confusingly, the upstream repo commingles the python module and the file format specification).
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-xdfile/python-xdfile.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-xdfile/python-xdfile-1.9.0~20240101git3349ddc-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - update to the latest git snapshot - reference upstream bug for broken tests - drop unnecessary shebangs
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6848297 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2138487-python-xdfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06848297-python-xdfile/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Thank you for the updates Davide, 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", "MIT License". 104 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2138487-python-xdfile/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python3-xdfile (description) [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6755 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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. [x]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-xdfile-1.9.0~20240101git3349ddc-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-xdfile-1.9.0~20240101git3349ddc-1.fc39.src.rpm ============================================================================================================ rpmlint session starts =========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpimn5gtgf')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============================================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ============================================================================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/century-arcade/xd/archive/3349ddcf5f4503b243ab9629d8cdbed756cbff56/xd-3349ddcf5f4503b243ab9629d8cdbed756cbff56.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 39f07c7fc529d2027559a2a9059fdcf861d9694271b780df27a0de7e5ecfc894 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 39f07c7fc529d2027559a2a9059fdcf861d9694271b780df27a0de7e5ecfc894 Requires -------- python3-xdfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(boto3) python3.12dist(botocore) python3.12dist(crossword) python3.12dist(cssselect) python3.12dist(lxml) python3.12dist(puzpy) python3.12dist(xword-dl) Provides -------- python3-xdfile: python-xdfile python3-xdfile python3.12-xdfile python3.12dist(xdfile) python3dist(xdfile) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138487 -m fedora-39-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-39-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, R, Java, Haskell, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xdfile
FEDORA-2024-bcfba5c36b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bcfba5c36b
FEDORA-2024-bcfba5c36b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c
FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57
FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-64cd168f57 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-2e1c103e0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.