Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06445300-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06445300-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: URI Normalization function * Take care of IDN domains. * Always provide the URI scheme in lowercase characters. * Always provide the host, if any, in lowercase characters. * Only perform percent-encoding where it is essential. * Always use uppercase A-through-F characters when percent-encoding. * Prevent dot-segments appearing in non-relative URI paths. * For schemes that define a default authority, use an empty authority if the default is desired. * For schemes that define an empty path to be equivalent to a path of "/", use "/". * For schemes that define a port, use an empty port if the default is desired * All portions of the URI must be utf-8 encoded NFC from Unicode strings Inspired by Sam Ruby's urlnorm.py: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2004/08/04/Urlnorm This fork author: Nikolay Panov (<pythonista>) Fedora Account System Username: kni RPMLint returns no errors or warnings: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.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 checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Ah hang on... I forgot to add python3 subpackages using the format: %package -n python3-%{srcname} New SRPM and specfile incoming...
Updated SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06445902-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Updated Specfile: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06445902-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize.spec
It seems my python specfile knowledge was outdated. I have updated the specfile to reflect the latest python packaging documentation and macros. Updated SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06446318-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Updated Specfile: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06446318-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize.spec Still no errors or warnings from RPMLint.
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-url- normalize/2240783-python-url-normalize/licensecheck.txt [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 10328 bytes in 1 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: [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [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-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.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/tmpet17tm3l')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ==== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 5.1 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/niksite/url-normalize/archive/1.4.3.tar.gz#/python-url-normalize-1.4.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9803deb16a6ecd88075686c4445ff6c78986d3ae676a4cc6cc3e4d324bc45c56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9803deb16a6ecd88075686c4445ff6c78986d3ae676a4cc6cc3e4d324bc45c56 Requires -------- python3-url-normalize (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(six) Provides -------- python3-url-normalize: python-url-normalize python3-url-normalize python3.11-url-normalize python3.11dist(url-normalize) python3dist(url-normalize) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2240783 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, Ruby, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please change BuildRequires: /usr/bin/pytest to BuildRequires: python3-pytest or BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106840348 Approved. Please fix (a) on import. Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239129 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237325 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218338 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
Please also use: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz instead of Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
Done and Done. Updated Specfile: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06468319-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize.spec Updated SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/python-requests-cache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06468319-python-url-normalize/python-url-normalize-1.4.3-1.fc40.src.rpm I am headed out of town for the weekend, but I should have some time to take a look at your package reviews Sunday late afternoon (US Central time).
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-url-normalize
FEDORA-2023-a183238ddb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a183238ddb
FEDORA-2023-c780d6a0d5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c780d6a0d5
FEDORA-2023-ea650e66e3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ea650e66e3
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5d464fd883 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5d464fd883
FEDORA-2023-a183238ddb 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-a183238ddb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a183238ddb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5d464fd883 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5d464fd883 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-ea650e66e3 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-ea650e66e3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ea650e66e3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-c780d6a0d5 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-c780d6a0d5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c780d6a0d5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5d464fd883 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-c780d6a0d5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-ea650e66e3 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-a183238ddb has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.