Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/tomcli/tomcli.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/tomcli/tomcli-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: tomcli is a CLI for working with TOML files. Pronounced "tohm-clee." Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99948323
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/tomcli/tomcli.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/tomcli/tomcli-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm fix Copyright; remove redundancy Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99994668
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", "*No copyright* Apache License". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/tomcli/2186902-tomcli/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [ ]: 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 2 files. [ ]: 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: [-]: 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tomcli+all , tomcli+tomli , tomcli+tomlkit [ ]: 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: Sources 0, 1 and 2 are not passed to gpgverify. [-]: 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: tomcli-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli+all-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli+tomli-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli+tomlkit-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli-0.1.0-1.fc39.src.rpm =================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpm65a5_mv')] checks: 31, packages: 5 tomcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcli-get tomcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcli-set tomcli+all.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcli+tomli.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcli+tomlkit.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================== 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 7.8 s ==================================== 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: 4 tomcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcli-get tomcli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcli-set tomcli+tomli.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcli+tomlkit.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcli+all.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://meta.sr.ht/~gotmax23.pgp : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928 https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/tomcli/refs/download/v0.1.0/tomcli-0.1.0.tar.gz.asc : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa22bd9a57ddb15ff13862ee8cff1183498f6f9af55a57e825c77e9cf13a9c3c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa22bd9a57ddb15ff13862ee8cff1183498f6f9af55a57e825c77e9cf13a9c3c https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/tomcli/refs/download/v0.1.0/tomcli-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 673ef34eaa2b8edd8627070bf88f6b7c00919d7e162e6649a3891f1266eaa656 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 673ef34eaa2b8edd8627070bf88f6b7c00919d7e162e6649a3891f1266eaa656 Requires -------- tomcli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3dist(tomcli[tomlkit]) or python3dist(tomcli[tomli])) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(typer) tomcli+all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(tomlkit) python3.11dist(typer) python3.11dist(typer[all]) tomcli tomcli+tomli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(tomli-w) tomcli tomcli+tomlkit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(tomlkit) tomcli Provides -------- tomcli: python3.11dist(tomcli) python3dist(tomcli) tomcli tomcli+all: python3.11dist(tomcli[all]) python3dist(tomcli[all]) tomcli+all tomcli+tomli: python3.11dist(tomcli[tomli]) python3dist(tomcli[tomli]) tomcli+tomli tomcli+tomlkit: python3.11dist(tomcli[tomlkit]) python3dist(tomcli[tomlkit]) tomcli+tomlkit Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2186902 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, R, fonts, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) The additional packages: tomcli+all-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli+tomli-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm tomcli+tomlkit-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm seem to be empty. Is this intentional?
I'm sorry for missing your response! Thank you for the review. > a) The additional packages: > tomcli+all-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > tomcli+tomli-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > tomcli+tomlkit-0.1.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > seem to be empty. Is this intentional? Yes, that is intentional. These are metapackages created by `%pyproject_extras_subpkg`. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_handling_extras.
Benson, can you please take another look?
Thanks seems ok. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tomcli
Thanks, Benson!
FEDORA-2023-b54c37b3da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b54c37b3da
FEDORA-2023-b54c37b3da has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462
FEDORA-2023-484d03d980 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-484d03d980
FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590
FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-484d03d980 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-484d03d980 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-484d03d980 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6dc3568590 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-484d03d980 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-0e04aa6462 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.