Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-perky/python-perky.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-perky/python-perky-0.8.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: A friendly, easy, Pythonic text file format. Perky is a new, simple "rcfile" text file format for Python programs. It solves the same problem as "INI" files, "TOML" files, and "JSON" files, but with its own opinion about how to best solve the problem. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102759034
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6127411 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2218703-python-perky/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06127411-python-perky/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 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". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python- perky/2218703-python-perky/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 20480 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: 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: [-]: 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. [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 ------- Checking: python3-perky-0.8.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-perky-0.8.1-1.fc38.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/tmpfke49z_v')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ===================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 6.6 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/larryhastings/perky//archive/0.8.1/perky-0.8.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24e7fa5b0d7911abb7ad0cc492df9f86b96e1e8184de9c813df3337afa63330a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24e7fa5b0d7911abb7ad0cc492df9f86b96e1e8184de9c813df3337afa63330a Requires -------- python3-perky (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) Provides -------- python3-perky: python-perky python3-perky python3.11-perky python3.11dist(perky) python3dist(perky) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2218703 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, R, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) Please check with upstream on intended license, pypi indicates BSD https://pypi.org/project/perky/ though license file in the repository is MIT. b) Please also check if https://github.com/larryhastings/perky/blob/master/perky/transform.py#L1-L14 will impact packaging. c) Add an explanation for why sed -i -e '1{\@^#!.*@d}' perky/utility.py is needed in the spec file. d) Can likely remove %license LICENSE as license is packaged in usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/perky-0.8.1.dist-info/
Spec URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-perky/python-perky.spec SRPM URL: https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-perky/python-perky-0.8.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Initial package Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102782595
> Comments: > a) Please check with upstream on intended license, pypi indicates BSD > https://pypi.org/project/perky/ > though license file in the repository is MIT. https://github.com/larryhastings/perky/pull/14 > b) Please also check if > https://github.com/larryhastings/perky/blob/master/perky/transform.py#L1-L14 > will impact packaging. I don't see how that would affect packaging. > c) Add an explanation for why > sed -i -e '1{\@^#!.*@d}' perky/utility.py > is needed in the spec file. Added a specfile comment. > d) Can likely remove > %license LICENSE > as license is packaged in > usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/perky-0.8.1.dist-info/ Added a specfile comment.
Created attachment 1973429 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6127411 to 6130345
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6130345 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2218703-python-perky/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06130345-python-perky/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 for the updates. Approved. Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218461 or https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218044 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-perky
FEDORA-2023-20102e59f6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-20102e59f6
FEDORA-2023-20102e59f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51
FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13
FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13 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-fb1d99bd13 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51 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-df3cf58e51 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.