Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated-2.0.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: No language, library or framework ever get everything right from the very beginning. The project evolves, new features are added/changed/removed. This means that projects relying on them must keep an eye on what's currently best practices. This flake8 plugin helps you keeping up with method deprecations and giving hints about what they should be replaced with. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: f36 f37 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94030756 Thanks!
Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated-2.0.1-2.fc38.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94432384
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.
The spec files looks good overall but I have a minor question: * Does it need a %license directive to store its license file?
> Does it need a %license directive to store its license file? Great question. This was actually revealed to me moderately recently, but "modern" Python packages will install their `LICENSE` file as part of the Python metadata if it was properly declared in the package. This is the case for flake8-deprecated: $ rpm -qlp RPMS/noarch/python3-flake8-deprecated-2.0.1-2.fc39.noarch.rpm | grep LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/flake8_deprecated-2.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE I can't find mention of it directly in the Python Packaging Guidelines[1], but there is mention of a macro flag to cause a build break if the LICENSE file is removed for whatever reason. I've updated the package to include that flag. There have also been releases in the ~18 months it's been since I submitted this review, so I updated the package to the latest release, 2.2.1. Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-flake8-deprecated/python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=115262591 [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7194404 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2141870-python-flake8-deprecated/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07194404-python-flake8-deprecated/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.
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: 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]: 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 3586 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.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/tmpb8x7sodk')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-flake8-deprecated.src: E: spelling-error ('deprecations', "%description -l en_US deprecations -> deprecation, deprecation's, depredations") python3-flake8-deprecated.noarch: E: spelling-error ('deprecations', "%description -l en_US deprecations -> deprecation, deprecation's, depredations") ============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 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 python3-flake8-deprecated.noarch: E: spelling-error ('deprecations', "%description -l en_US deprecations -> deprecation, deprecation's, depredations") 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-deprecated/archive/2.2.1/flake8-deprecated-2.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e5bb63157c620da2a394e94336ae7ff6120d6e3e6e8ac676513392e42a03ed19 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e5bb63157c620da2a394e94336ae7ff6120d6e3e6e8ac676513392e42a03ed19 Requires -------- python3-flake8-deprecated (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(flake8) Provides -------- python3-flake8-deprecated: python-flake8-deprecated python3-flake8-deprecated python3.12-flake8-deprecated python3.12dist(flake8-deprecated) python3dist(flake8-deprecated)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flake8-deprecated
FEDORA-2024-ba3161877e (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ba3161877e
FEDORA-2024-2c32f423ce (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2c32f423ce
FEDORA-2024-e225af5fbe (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e225af5fbe
FEDORA-2024-ba3161877e (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.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-e225af5fbe 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-e225af5fbe \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e225af5fbe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d9618935ea 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-d9618935ea See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2c32f423ce 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-2024-2c32f423ce \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2c32f423ce See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-2c32f423ce (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.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-e225af5fbe (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.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-d9618935ea (python-flake8-deprecated-2.2.1-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.