Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/omos/fedora-package-review/-/raw/1b6e584ee636195b1b0ebc59642b69faf5266107/python-jaraco-context/python-jaraco-context.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/omos/python-jaraco-text/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06308080-python-jaraco-context/python-jaraco-context-4.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Context managers by jaraco Fedora Account System Username: omos COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/python-jaraco-text/build/6308080/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6313496 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2232628-python-jaraco-context/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06313496-python-jaraco-context/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 ===== 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". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dradez/workspace/fedora- scm/reviews/2232628-python-jaraco-context/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/jaraco(python3-jaraco), /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages/jaraco/__pycache__(python3-jaraco-logging) [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: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 3006 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [?]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [?]: 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 ===== 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-jaraco-context-4.3.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-jaraco-context-4.3.0-1.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/tmpe5we9yi5')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/jaraco.context/jaraco.context-4.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4dad2404540b936a20acedec53355bdaea223acb88fd329fa6de9261c941566e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4dad2404540b936a20acedec53355bdaea223acb88fd329fa6de9261c941566e Requires -------- python3-jaraco-context (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-jaraco-context: python-jaraco-context python3-jaraco-context python3.12-jaraco-context python3.12dist(jaraco-context) python3dist(jaraco-context) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/dradez/workspace/fedora-scm/reviews/2232628-python-jaraco-context/srpm/python-jaraco-context.spec 2023-08-23 09:19:40.339843493 -0400 +++ /home/dradez/workspace/fedora-scm/reviews/2232628-python-jaraco-context/srpm-unpacked/python-jaraco-context.spec 2023-08-15 20:00:00.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # TODO adjust once this is implemented: # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935266 @@ -61,3 +71,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Wed Aug 16 2023 John Doe <packager> - 4.3.0-1 +- Uncommitted changes Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2232628 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, C/C++, fonts, PHP, R, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Dan Radez from comment #2) > [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see > attached diff). > See: (this test has no URL) This is just due to rpmautospec [1] being used. Is that the only concern from your side? [1] https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html
I figured this was just from autospec. I don't think I have access to approve the reviews. I'm only a packager and not a proven packager. No concerns from me.
If you are in the packager group you can review and approve. It seems ok to me. Release is not signed: https://github.com/jaraco/jaraco.context/releases/tag/v4.3.0 Build does not download eggs.
Hu, I didn't think I had the ability to approve. This is Approved
Yes, all packagers can approve package reviews (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/). However, the bug should not be closed upon approval, but only when the submitter builds the new package in rawhide, so I'm reopening it (I'm not sure if the next steps would accept a closed bug). Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jaraco-context
FEDORA-2023-5c0407fe46 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5c0407fe46
FEDORA-2023-5c0407fe46 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 2270682 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***