Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: PEP8 says we should surround every class method with a single blank line. However flake8 is ambiguous about the first method having a blank line above it. This plugin was made to enforce that it should. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: f36 f37 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94030753 Thanks!
Similar to bug 2141871, could you do a mass update for bug 2141868, bug 2141870 and bug 2143071 on: 1) the description as variable 2) not use %srcname in URL For current spec, the upstream haven't update or release package since 2017, for the build as the flake8 versions in the dev test env have been updated with: # Relax maximum test dependency versions sed -i 's/<[=0-9.]*,\?//' requirements-dev.txt which will be updated in %pyproject_buildrequires -t for the tox test requirements. It works as test could pass. @Miro any comment with update require version in spec? seems reasonable as for packaging. The upstream is with MIT licence and Modern Style with sublicense, so the SPDX identifier in the spec is accurate. The require info is accurate with: Requires -------- python3-flake8-class-newline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8) as in the setup.py: https://github.com/AlexanderVanEck/flake8-class-newline/blob/master/setup.py#L32 The rpmlint also pass on srpm, spec and built rpm: # rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/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 0.7 s ==================================== # rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-class-newline.spec =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ==================================== 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ==================================== # rpmlint results/python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/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 0.0 s ==================================== With test install on my laptop: # dnf install results/python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:38 ago on Tue 22 Nov 2022 04:40:26 PM GMT. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch - nothing provides python3.11dist(flake8) needed by python3-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-1.fc38.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) the error is expected and the require info on the dependency match with python3-flake8-class-newline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8)
> @Miro any comment with update require version in spec? seems reasonable as for packaging. It is reasonable.
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-class-newline/python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc38.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94432024
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2567 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: [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. [-]: 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-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc40.noarch.rpm python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc40.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpwqbpkmbw')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AlexanderVanEck/flake8-class-newline/archive/1.6.0/flake8-class-newline-1.6.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5993799a98acd2e391195ec92bd2ab7735be6796e13dae1e6893f14a121fd0c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5993799a98acd2e391195ec92bd2ab7735be6796e13dae1e6893f14a121fd0c Requires -------- python3-flake8-class-newline (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(flake8) Provides -------- python3-flake8-class-newline: python-flake8-class-newline python3-flake8-class-newline python3.12-flake8-class-newline python3.12dist(flake8-class-newline) python3dist(flake8-class-newline)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flake8-class-newline
FEDORA-2024-a690bfd1e7 (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-a690bfd1e7
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d4bc07fb0f (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d4bc07fb0f
FEDORA-2024-362e34a4c4 (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-362e34a4c4
FEDORA-2024-a690bfd1e7 (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-5b1ff97391 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-5b1ff97391 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5b1ff97391 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d4bc07fb0f 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-2024-d4bc07fb0f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-362e34a4c4 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-2024-362e34a4c4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-362e34a4c4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-362e34a4c4 (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-5b1ff97391 (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d4bc07fb0f (python-flake8-class-newline-1.6.0-2.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.