Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mathics-pygments/python-mathics-pygments.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mathics-pygments/python-mathics-pygments-1.0.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: This is package provides a lexer and highlighter for Mathematica/Wolfram Language source code using the pygments engine. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5205696 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2158955-python-mathics-pygments/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05205696-python-mathics-pygments/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
LGTM, APPROVED There's a GPLed tool bundled but it's not shipped, so this is fine 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", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2158955-python- mathics-pygments/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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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: [-]: 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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 ---------------- http://github.com/Mathics3/mathics-pygments/archive/1.0.2/mathics-pygments-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 70121208eb13be0d1795bda1890bfd7e3b856bbc2e0b9891119ca5ae97de51ac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70121208eb13be0d1795bda1890bfd7e3b856bbc2e0b9891119ca5ae97de51ac Requires -------- python3-mathics-pygments (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(mathics-scanner) python3.11dist(pygments) Provides -------- python3-mathics-pygments: python-mathics-pygments python3-mathics-pygments python3.11-mathics-pygments python3.11dist(mathics-pygments) python3dist(mathics-pygments) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2158955 -L /home/michel/tmp/mathics/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/michel/tmp/mathics/python3-mathics-scanner-1.2.4-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo python-mathics-pygments 2158955 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50323 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-mathics-pygments f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50324 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-mathics-pygments f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50325
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mathics-pygments
FEDORA-2023-8433253b11 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8433253b11
FEDORA-2023-8433253b11 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-fbb955dd0f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fbb955dd0f
FEDORA-2023-99c173ba9b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-99c173ba9b
FEDORA-2023-fbb955dd0f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-99c173ba9b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.