Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev-0.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: A Python library for interacting with the Deps.dev API. Easily fetch package, version, and project data from the API. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104766414
New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev-0.1.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104773788
New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc38.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=104787311
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6270623 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231674-python-pydepsdev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06270623-python-pydepsdev/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6270624 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231674-python-pydepsdev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06270624-python-pydepsdev/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.
Created attachment 1983223 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6270624 to 6270628
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6270628 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231674-python-pydepsdev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06270628-python-pydepsdev/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 Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'ASL-2.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please correct this to: Apache-2.0 Notes: ====== - I think that using the %{pypi_name} macro just introduces noise and indirection, without making the spec file meaningfully more reusable than just writing out the package name. However, this is purely a matter of opinion and personal taste, and no change is required. ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/Downloads/review/2231674-python-pydepsdev/licensecheck.txt The license *refers* to the correct license, but needs to be updated to SPDX syntax. [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. [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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydepsdev-0.1.2.dist-info/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2851 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) This seems spurious. [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 ===== 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. (tests pass) [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc40.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/tmpjb3bxqju')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-pydepsdev.src: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0 python3-pydepsdev.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0 ================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ================ Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 python3-pydepsdev.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL-2.0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/eclipseo/pydepsdev/archive/v0.1.2/pydepsdev-0.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b09558272e8ee95872e1491fd3eaf5782b8679692c7c6d7fd76da971c57207fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b09558272e8ee95872e1491fd3eaf5782b8679692c7c6d7fd76da971c57207fc Requires -------- python3-pydepsdev (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(aiohttp) Provides -------- python3-pydepsdev: python-pydepsdev python3-pydepsdev python3.12-pydepsdev python3.12dist(pydepsdev) python3dist(pydepsdev) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2231674 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Fixed, thanks!
Created attachment 1983979 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6270628 to 6317071
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6317071 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2231674-python-pydepsdev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06317071-python-pydepsdev/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.
Sorry for the delay. I’ll finish this up ASAP.
I reviewed the updated package by examining the spec-file diff and the rpmlint output. Everything is as it was in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231674#c10, except that the License field is corrected. The package is therefore APPROVED. $ diff -Naur ../srpm-unpacked/python-pydepsdev.spec 2231674-python-pydepsdev/srpm-unpacked/python-pydepsdev.spec --- ../srpm-unpacked/python-pydepsdev.spec 2023-08-12 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 +++ 2231674-python-pydepsdev/srpm-unpacked/python-pydepsdev.spec 2023-08-17 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Release: %autorelease Summary: Python library for interacting with the Deps.dev API -License: ASL-2.0 +License: Apache-2.0 URL: https://github.com/eclipseo/pydepsdev Source: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz Checking: python3-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pydepsdev-0.1.2-1.fc40.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/tmp95t4d425')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pydepsdev
Thank you for the review! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/55806
FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689
FEDORA-2023-a142463801 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a142463801
FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-a142463801 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-a142463801 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a142463801 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-a142463801 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-5c2b318689 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.