Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-datetimerange-sources/main/python-datetimerange.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-datetimerange-sources/raw/main/python-DateTimeRange-1.2.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: DateTimeRange is a Python library to handle a time range. e.g. check whether a time is within the time range, get the intersection of time ranges, truncate a time range, iterate through a time range, and so forth. Fedora Account System Username: karolinku
Some comments: - srpm package name should be python-datetimerange, not python-DateTimeRange - in the summary, i'd say "Python module DateTimeRange" - I see you are patching requirements.txt: sed -i 's/\[datetime\]//g' requirements/requirements.txt As we are not providing subpackage datetime in python-typepy. Note that this package is actually using that specific functionality of typepy and python3-typepy is not including the extra_requirements needed for it: https://github.com/thombashi/typepy/blob/master/setup.py#L44-L48 That means this package will fail at runtime when trying to import datetimerange I'd propose to fix python-typepy and add the requirements for dateutil extras explicitelly. Other alternatives would be creating subpackage python3-typepy+dateutil or adding those runtime requirements in python-datetimerange, although i'd say the right fix would be more in the python-typepy side.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-datetimerange-sources/main/python-datetimerange.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-datetimerange-sources/raw/main/python-datetimerange-1.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5597653 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2169695-python-datetimerange/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05597653-python-datetimerange/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 is approved 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2169695-python-datetimerange/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: 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 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/D/DateTimeRange/DateTimeRange-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 47bc10e5df23bb1f0d3ee493a26cb8d1d99e179884aabff62d3e51033b6a73ce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 47bc10e5df23bb1f0d3ee493a26cb8d1d99e179884aabff62d3e51033b6a73ce Requires -------- python3-datetimerange (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.11dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.4.2) (python3.11dist(typepy) < 2~~ with python3.11dist(typepy) >= 1) (python3.11dist(typepy[datetime]) < 2~~ with python3.11dist(typepy[datetime]) >= 1) python(abi) Provides -------- python3-datetimerange: python-datetimerange python3-datetimerange python3.11-datetimerange python3.11dist(datetimerange) python3dist(datetimerange) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2169695 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-datetimerange
Package is now in repositories, closing review.