Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode-31.0.2-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Commoncode provides a set of common functions and utilities for handling various things like paths, dates, files and hashes. It started as library in scancode-toolkit. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo To build it against the dependencies, use the following COPR in your rawhide mock.cfg: [copr:copr.fedorainfracloud.org:eclipseo:scancode-toolkit] name=Copr repo for scancode-toolkit owned by eclipseo baseurl=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-/ type=rpm-md skip_if_unavailable=True gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/pubkey.gpg repo_gpgcheck=0 enabled=1 enabled_metadata=1
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345537 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235057-python-commoncode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345537-python-commoncode/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.
I will take this review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The file src/commoncode/dict_utils.py is licensed with Python-2.0, and has a corresponding documentation file (dict_utils.ABOUT) and license file (python.LICENSE) in the same directory. This should be reflected in the License field at least, and possibly in %doc and %license as well. - Similarly, src/commoncode/fileutils.py contains functions licensed with Python-2.0, and has a corresponding documentation file (fileutils.py.ABOUT) and license file (python.LICENSE) in the same directory. - As an addendum, note that dict_utils.ABOUT, fileutils.py.ABOUT, and python.LICENSE are currently installed in %{python3_sitelib}, but shouldn't be if they are marked as %doc or %license. - The file src/commoncode/functional.py contains a function `flatten` whose docstring includes this: Originally derived from http://www.andreasen.org/misc/util.py 2002-2005 by Erwin S. Andreasen -- http://www.andreasen.org/misc.shtml This file is in the Public Domain Version: Id: util.py,v 1.22 2005/12/16 00:08:21 erwin Exp erwin That should also be mentioned in the License field. - Note the rpmlint summary-too-long error. Perhaps it could be shortened to: Functions for handling paths, dates, files and hashes - Note that version 31.0.3 has been released. (That's a SHOULD, not a MUST, so I won't insist that you update.) - Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires. This package does not test with tox. - The problem with the Chinese test is that it is running in an ASCII environment. Add this to the top of %check and the test passes: export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 - I question the value of including CODE_OF_CONDUCT.rst as %doc. It's a fairly standard and widely available document, and is of more interest to contributors to the project than to users of it. ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views sentence", "Python License 2.0", "Public domain Apache License 2.0", "Common Public License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "zlib License", "Apache License 1.1", "*No copyright* Common Public License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License", "Boost Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0", "NTP License". 203 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2235057-python-commoncode/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 13231 bytes in 4 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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-commoncode-31.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-commoncode-doc-31.0.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-commoncode-31.0.2-1.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/tmpstbth0k9')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python-commoncode.src: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes python3-commoncode.noarch: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes ================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 2 python3-commoncode.noarch: E: summary-too-long Set of common functions and utilities for handling paths, dates, files and hashes 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/nexB/commoncode/archive/v31.0.2/commoncode-31.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8509e7e3774fbbb9dc512b9e912e54f4f5c582e380c54b128a4d435e085e4d34 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8509e7e3774fbbb9dc512b9e912e54f4f5c582e380c54b128a4d435e085e4d34 Requires -------- python3-commoncode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ((python3.12dist(attrs) < 20.1 or python3.12dist(attrs) > 20.1) with python3.12dist(attrs) >= 18.1) ((python3.12dist(click) < 7 or python3.12dist(click) > 7) with python3.12dist(click) >= 6.7) python(abi) python3.12dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.12dist(requests) python3.12dist(saneyaml) python3.12dist(text-unidecode) python-commoncode-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-commoncode: python-commoncode python3-commoncode python3.12-commoncode python3.12dist(commoncode) python3dist(commoncode) python-commoncode-doc: python-commoncode-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235057 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ruby, Ocaml, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you fro your review: Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-commoncode-31.0.3-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6528080 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235057-python-commoncode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06528080-python-commoncode/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.
Looks good. This package is APPROVED.
Thank you for the review Jerry! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57421
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-commoncode
FEDORA-2023-6362595946 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6362595946
FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7
FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 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-dbed56f9f7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6362595946 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-2023-6362595946 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6362595946 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3
FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 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-2023-4f6c8a8da3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6362595946 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-dbed56f9f7 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-4f6c8a8da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.