Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-inquirer/python-inquirer.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-inquirer/python-inquirer-3.1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: This package provides a collection of common interactive command line user interfaces, based on Inquirer.js. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6173864 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223010-python-inquirer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06173864-python-inquirer/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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 issue - the LICENSE file is added to %{python3_sitelib} but without the correct metadata. Either patch this and upstream it, or just declare something like %license %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}.dist-info/LICENSE Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/davide/2223010-python- inquirer/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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [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). [x]: 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-inquirer-3.1.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-inquirer-3.1.3-1.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/tmpqn4kxkay')] checks: 31, packages: 2 =================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/magmax/python-inquirer/archive/v3.1.3/python-inquirer-3.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e2ad203a7e4f5dab7dbd49f0eb3c10370a8afa3a3f045a2f3df6c3874a08732e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e2ad203a7e4f5dab7dbd49f0eb3c10370a8afa3a3f045a2f3df6c3874a08732e Requires -------- python3-inquirer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(blessed) python3.11dist(python-editor) python3.11dist(readchar) Provides -------- python3-inquirer: python-inquirer python3-inquirer python3.11-inquirer python3.11dist(inquirer) python3dist(inquirer) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2223010 -m fedora-38-x86_64 -L repo Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Ocaml, R, fonts, Perl, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/davide/repo/python3-readchar-4.0.5-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
If the license file is in %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}.dist-info/LICENSE a separate license declaration is not needed. See also: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #3) > If the license file is in > %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}.dist-info/LICENSE > a separate license declaration is not needed. See also: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223 that did not say that - it says you're allowed to package the license file with an absolute path, but it has to be marked as a license. Right now that's not the case. See e.g. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-nu-engine/blob/3304b2b1c6aba1728b57ab6ef585a957a84f3d43/f/rust-nu-engine.spec#_33 for one of the Rust examples. There are Python projects where the wheel tags the LICENSE file as a license, such that rpm -qpL picks it up, but that's not the case here michel in reviews/davide/2223010-python-inquirer ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯ rpm -qpL ./results/*noarch.rpm michel in reviews/davide/2223010-python-inquirer ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:38] ❯
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-inquirer/python-inquirer.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-inquirer/python-inquirer-3.1.3-1.fc39.src.rpm Changelog: - add license to filelist
Created attachment 1980303 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6173864 to 6217786
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6217786 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2223010-python-inquirer/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06217786-python-inquirer/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.
Ok, Poetry needs to be updated to do that. https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/1350
APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-inquirer
FEDORA-2024-67e0e1c469 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-67e0e1c469
FEDORA-2024-67e0e1c469 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-e617481013 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e617481013
FEDORA-2024-494a8985f9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-494a8985f9
FEDORA-2024-e617481013 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-494a8985f9 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-2024-494a8985f9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-494a8985f9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-494a8985f9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.