Spec URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-icmplib/python-icmplib.spec SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-icmplib/python-icmplib-3.0.3-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: An implementation of the ICMP protocol in Python Fedora Account System Username: pwouters
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6383048 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237913-python-icmplib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06383048-python-icmplib/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.
*Not ready* Since Fedora 38 release every packager SHOULD use Rpmautospec (`%autorelease` and `%autochangelog`), see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_release_tag https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs I haven't started the formal review process yet, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/#_reviewer
I changed it to use rpmautospec. Ironically, I cannot push that as a -2 release now, so you will have to use the existing links that point to updated versions of the -1 release :) I didnt see any issues on the review.txt but I only checked its reported issues and many require human checking still, which the reviewer, not packager should do :)
Apparently, you've forgotten (or accidentally removed) `%pyproject_save_files`. When I run: ``` $ fedora-review -b 2237913 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ``` in Fedora 38 I get: ``` ... + echo 'ERROR: %pyproject_check_import only works when %pyproject_save_files is used' ERROR: %pyproject_check_import only works when %pyproject_save_files is used + exit 1 ... ``` in `2237913-python-icmplib/results/build.log`.
- Fixed macro use - Fixed source tar.gz mismatch (using github tag, not pypi because the tar.gz's differ, and the pypi one doesn't contain the docs - fixed license name
APPROVED First, I wanted to make it as "needswork", but then have decided that the issue here is not that big. * Package license is unclear: it is either LGPL-3.0-only or LGPL-3.0-or-later, or both at the same time. I would select "LGPL-3.0-only", because the possibility to use it under LGPLv3 is definetely true. Another option is to use "LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later", even though it looks a bit strange, since there is a rule about no “effective license” analysis, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis I have created an issue in the project repository, see: https://github.com/ValentinBELYN/icmplib/issues/72 Some relevant lines from licensecheck.txt: GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later ----------------------------------------------- icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/__init__.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/exceptions.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/models.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/multiping.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/ping.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/sockets.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/traceroute.py icmplib-3.0.3/icmplib/utils.py icmplib-3.0.3/setup.py GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 -------------------------------------------- icmplib-3.0.3/LICENSE icmplib-3.0.3/README.md icmplib-3.0.3/examples/broadcast_ping.py icmplib-3.0.3/examples/multiping.py icmplib-3.0.3/examples/ping.py icmplib-3.0.3/examples/traceroute.py icmplib-3.0.3/examples/verbose_ping.py icmplib-3.0.3/examples/verbose_traceroute.py Since LGPLv4 doesn't exist (yet?), I believe it is not that important (however, I would not object if you decide to fix it as I have suggested :-)). 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rominf/dev/fedora-scm/review/2237913-python- icmplib/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: 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 51655 bytes in 13 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-icmplib-3.0.3-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-icmplib-3.0.3-1.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/tmpopb48w1e')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ===================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ValentinBELYN/icmplib/archive/v3.0.3/python-icmplib-v3.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b628d930ff454bd2094c1560c1884626251ef895fdba5ed7db8a841bbe8875cf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b628d930ff454bd2094c1560c1884626251ef895fdba5ed7db8a841bbe8875cf Requires -------- python3-icmplib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-icmplib: python-icmplib python3-icmplib python3.12-icmplib python3.12dist(icmplib) python3dist(icmplib) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237913 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, Java, R, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
thanks. I've added a comment to the upstream issue so we don't forget to check it and update it once it has been clarified.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-icmplib
FEDORA-2023-7a6c92818a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7a6c92818a
FEDORA-2023-c6a26220c1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6a26220c1
FEDORA-2023-7a6c92818a 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-2023-7a6c92818a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-7a6c92818a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c6a26220c1 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-c6a26220c1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c6a26220c1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c6a26220c1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-7a6c92818a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.