Re-review request for renaming maildirproc to mailprocessing following upstream and updating package to latest release. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05859533-mailprocessing/mailprocessing.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05859533-mailprocessing/mailprocessing-1.2.7-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: The mailprocessing library contains two executables: maildirproc and imapproc. maildirproc processes one or several several existing mail boxes in the maildir format. It is primarily focused on mail sorting – i.e., moving, copying, forwarding and deleting mail according to a set of rules. It can be seen as an alternative to procmail, but instead of being a delivery agent (which wants to be part of the delivery chain), maildirproc only processes already delivered mail. And that’s a feature, not a bug. imapproc does the same thing for IMAP folders. Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty Package to be replaced: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maildirproc Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/5859533/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5859544 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2191715-mailprocessing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05859544-mailprocessing/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.
One thing I forgot to put in the spec file is a comment regarding the LICENSE file. It produces an incorrect-fsf-address error. I reported it upstream by way of a PR: https://github.com/mailprocessing/mailprocessing/pull/14
(In reply to Sandro from comment #2) > One thing I forgot to put in the spec file is a comment regarding the > LICENSE file. It produces an incorrect-fsf-address error. I reported it > upstream by way of a PR: > https://github.com/mailprocessing/mailprocessing/pull/14 The PR has been merged. I updated the spec file using the commit as a patch. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05862686-mailprocessing/mailprocessing.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05862686-mailprocessing/mailprocessing-1.2.7-2.fc39.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/5862686/
Created attachment 1961330 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5859544 to 5862701
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5862701 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2191715-mailprocessing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05862701-mailprocessing/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 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/mailprocessing/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. [X]: 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 92160 bytes in 23 files. [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mailprocessing-1.2.7-2.fc39.noarch.rpm mailprocessing-1.2.7-2.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/tmp56l_hgl7')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================================================================ Provides and obsoletes are provided. TODO: - I see encoding problems in the description (probably due to the online sharing): %global _description %{expand: The mailprocessing library contains two executables: maildirproc and imapproc. maildirproc processes one or several several existing mail boxes in the maildir format. It is primarily focused on mail sorting – i.e., moving, copying, forwarding and deleting mail according to a set of rules. It can be seen as an alternative to procmail, but instead of being a delivery agent (which wants to be part of the delivery chain), maildirproc only processes already delivered mail. And that’s a feature, not a bug. imapproc does the same thing for IMAP folders.} Please check it out.
> I see encoding problems in the description (probably due to the online sharing) Good catch! I need to remember to check when copying over text from websites. I'll fix that. But I don't have access to my PC right now (some teenage gamer has claimed it).
I fixed the description: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06001740-mailprocessing/mailprocessing.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06001740-mailprocessing/mailprocessing-1.2.7-3.fc39.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/6001740/
Created attachment 1968846 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5862701 to 6001753
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6001753 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2191715-mailprocessing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06001753-mailprocessing/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.
Thanks. ***PACKAGE APPROVED***
Assigning to you since this is required for requesting dist-git repo.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mailprocessing
FEDORA-2023-b744ee013f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b744ee013f
FEDORA-2023-1298ea9fac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1298ea9fac
FEDORA-2023-1298ea9fac 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-2023-1298ea9fac \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1298ea9fac See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-b744ee013f 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-b744ee013f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b744ee013f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-b744ee013f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-1298ea9fac has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.