Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools-0.7.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Python library to parse, validate and create SPDX documents. Features: - API to create and manipulate SPDX v2.2 and v2.3 documents - Parse, convert, create and validate SPDX files - supported formats: Tag/Value, RDF, JSON, YAML, XML - visualize the structure of a SPDX document by creating an AGraph. Note: This is an optional feature and requires additional installation of optional dependencies 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
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools-0.7.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540229 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235083-python-spdx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06540229-python-spdx-tools/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.
This needs to be addressed: python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/convertor.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/parser.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_tv.py /usr/bin/env python python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/tv_to_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/write_tv.py /usr/bin/env python This would be nice to fix. At least please open the issue with upstream: python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_convertor python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_parser https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/pull/3456 is merged, so you can rebase to 0.8.1. You are missing full-stop at the end of %description paragraph. Otherwise LGTM
Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-spdx-tools-0.7.1-1.fc39.src.rpm > https://github.com/nexB/scancode-toolkit/pull/3456 is merged, so you can rebase to 0.8.1. Need to wait for A RELEASE > This needs to be addressed: > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/convertor.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/spdx/cli_tools/parser.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/pp_tv.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/tv_to_rdf.py /usr/bin/env python > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: E: env-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/python3-spdx-tools/examples/write_tv.py /usr/bin/env python Addressed. > This would be nice to fix. At least please open the issue with upstream: > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_convertor > python3-spdx-tools.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyspdxtools_parser I will use help2man for now. Thanks for the review.
Created attachment 1996269 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6540229 to 6582839
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6582839 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235083-python-spdx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06582839-python-spdx-tools/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 [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20003 bytes in 8 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]: 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: [x]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Note: It is not latest version, but it was justified in comments. [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. APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-spdx-tools
Thanks for the review!
FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d
FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787
FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7
FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 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-2023-6584b1c787 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d 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-2023-6c815e0b1d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 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-c6b91bd7b7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c6b91bd7b7 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-6c815e0b1d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-6584b1c787 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.