Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: pyahocorasick is a fast and memory efficient library for exact or approximate multi-pattern string search meaning that you can find multiple key strings occurrences at once in some input text. The strings "index" can be built ahead of time and saved (as a pickle) to disk to reload and reuse later. The library provides an ahocorasick Python module that you can use as a plain dict-like Trie or convert a Trie to an automaton for efficient Aho-Corasick search. pyahocorasick is implemented in C and tested on Python 3.6 and up. It works on 64 bits Linux, macOS and Windows. 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
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-pyahocorasick/2235078-python- pyahocorasick/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 26332 bytes in 2 files. [ ]: 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 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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pyahocorasick [ ]: 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. [!]: 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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-pyahocorasick-doc-2.0.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-pyahocorasick-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.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/tmpvg5syr0k')] checks: 31, packages: 4 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 4.8 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyahocorasick: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/ahocorasick.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WojciechMula/pyahocorasick/archive/2.0.0/pyahocorasick-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0cf3911bf3e7049ec79a05ab29b4a883ea7be8df2385e72aeb4070782684bc3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0cf3911bf3e7049ec79a05ab29b4a883ea7be8df2385e72aeb4070782684bc3 Requires -------- python3-pyahocorasick (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-pyahocorasick-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python-pyahocorasick-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pyahocorasick: python-pyahocorasick python3-pyahocorasick python3-pyahocorasick(x86-64) python3.11-pyahocorasick python3.11dist(pyahocorasick) python3dist(pyahocorasick) python-pyahocorasick-doc: python-pyahocorasick-doc python-pyahocorasick-debugsource: python-pyahocorasick-debugsource python-pyahocorasick-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235078 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Ruby, Haskell, Java, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Doc package has bundled js-jquery and js-underscore. Please indicate this in the spec file. b) Build log contains: WARNING: Invalid configuration value found: 'language = None'. Update your configuration to a valid language code. Falling back to 'en' (English). Maybe this can be updated? c) README.rst is in both /share/doc/python3-pyahocorasick /usr/lib64/python3.12/pyahocorasick-2.0.0.dist-info It does not need to be marked as a doc file. d) License is also in /usr/lib64/python3.12/pyahocorasick-2.0.0.dist-info but rpm -qL only gives: /usr/share/licenses/python3-pyahocorasick/LICENSE so marking it as a license is good, but would be better if the license file in dist-info carried the license metadata. e) The files pyahocorasick-2.0.0/src/common.h pyahocorasick-2.0.0/src/slist.c pyahocorasick-2.0.0/src/slist.h pyahocorasick-2.0.0/src/utils.c are in the public domain. This is not a valid code license for Fedora. Perhaps check if upstream can dual license these also under BSD-3-Clause or some other license that is ok for code in Fedora. f) It does not build on i686 or s390x: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106955254
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm It does not need to be marked as a doc file. d) License is also in /usr/lib64/python3.12/pyahocorasick-2.0.0.dist-info but rpm -qL only gives: /usr/share/licenses/python3-pyahocorasick/LICENSE so marking it as a license is good, but would be better if the license file in dist-info This is normally handled by the macros. > are in the public domain. This is not a valid code license for Fedora. Since when? This was always ok. Thank you for the review. Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6532623 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235078-python-pyahocorasick/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06532623-python-pyahocorasick/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.
License review request for Public Domain: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/392 Added bundling and licenses for Sphinx javascript: %package -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc Summary: Documentation for python-%{pypi_name} # BSD-2-Clause: Sphinx javascript # MIT: jquery License: Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND MIT BuildArch: noarch Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} Provides: bundled(js-doctools) Provides: bundled(js-language_data) Provides: bundled(js-searchtools) Provides: bundled(js-sidebar) Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Thanks for the updates. Will check in next few days. May also consider generating man pages or pdf to avoid bundled packages.
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 - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD-3-Clause and LicenseRef-Fedora- Public-Domain'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2235078-python-pyahocorasick/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: 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 6072 bytes in 1 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. [ ]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pyahocorasick [ ]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm python-pyahocorasick-doc-2.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-pyahocorasick-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc40.aarch64.rpm python-pyahocorasick-2.0.0-1.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/tmp0s60o2ii')] checks: 31, packages: 4 python-pyahocorasick.spec:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-doctools) python-pyahocorasick.spec:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-language_data) python-pyahocorasick.spec:44: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-searchtools) python-pyahocorasick.spec:45: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(js-sidebar) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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: 3 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pyahocorasick: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/ahocorasick.cpython-312-aarch64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/WojciechMula/pyahocorasick/archive/2.0.0/pyahocorasick-2.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0cf3911bf3e7049ec79a05ab29b4a883ea7be8df2385e72aeb4070782684bc3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0cf3911bf3e7049ec79a05ab29b4a883ea7be8df2385e72aeb4070782684bc3 Requires -------- python3-pyahocorasick (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-pyahocorasick-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-pyahocorasick python-pyahocorasick-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pyahocorasick: python-pyahocorasick python3-pyahocorasick python3-pyahocorasick(aarch-64) python3.12-pyahocorasick python3.12dist(pyahocorasick) python3dist(pyahocorasick) python-pyahocorasick-doc: bundled(js-doctools) bundled(js-language_data) bundled(js-searchtools) bundled(js-sidebar) python-pyahocorasick-doc python-pyahocorasick-debugsource: python-pyahocorasick-debugsource python-pyahocorasick-debugsource(aarch-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235078 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use AND instead of and in the license field for the main package b) Please add %license LICENSE to the docs package c) Happy to approve once legal has indicated license name that should be used.
Created attachment 1995172 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6532623 to 6557866
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6557866 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235078-python-pyahocorasick/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06557866-python-pyahocorasick/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.
> a) Please use AND instead of and in the license field for the main package Done >b) Please add >%license LICENSE >to the docs package This is not necessary as the doc package depends on the main one: Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release} > c) Happy to approve once legal has indicated license name that should be used. It has been approved yesterday: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/392 Thanks for the review!
Approved.
Thanks for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyahocorasick
Package is now built for all stable Fedoras. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=38759