Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-types-docutils/python-types-docutils.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-types-docutils/python-types-docutils-0.19.1.1-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: This is a PEP 561 type stub package for the docutils package. It can be used by type-checking tools like mypy, PyCharm, pytype etc. to check code that uses docutils. The source for this package can be found at https://github.com/python/typeshed/tree/master/stubs/docutils. All fixes for types and metadata should be contributed there. See https://github.com/python/typeshed/blob/master/README.md for more details. This package was generated from typeshed commit ce4668a1328cfbdccc0137cdf9b9bd5c64120a6c. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=96062230
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5224805 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2160539-python-types-docutils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05224805-python-types-docutils/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
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ==> License file is from GitHub. This is, for the time being, a neat workaround. Have you filed a request for the license file to be included in the PyPI tarball? I couldn't find one. [!]: Latest version is packaged. ==> Version 0.19.1.2 is available on PyPI. Please update. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [?]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
Thanks for the review (and sorry for the delay)! (In reply to Sandro from comment #3) > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > ==> License file is from GitHub. This is, for the time being, a neat > workaround. Have you filed a request for the license file to be included in > the PyPI tarball? I couldn't find one. These pypi archives are generated from this master repo, so they've only got the one copy of license that applies to all the stubs they generate, and they don't include it in any of the pypi archives: https://github.com/python/typeshed I've filed this now: https://github.com/python/typeshed/issues/9621 > > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > ==> Version 0.19.1.2 is available on PyPI. Please update. > Updated: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-types-docutils/python-types-docutils.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-types-docutils/python-types-docutils-0.19.1.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Cheers, Ankur
Created attachment 1941111 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5224805 to 5365332
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5365332 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2160539-python-types-docutils/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05365332-python-types-docutils/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
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4) > (In reply to Sandro from comment #3) > > I've filed this now: > > https://github.com/python/typeshed/issues/9621 Looks like the license file will be included in an upcoming release. Looks good now. Package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-types-docutils