Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546267-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546267-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools-3.6.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Automated Fedora Review URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546267-python-domdf-python-tools/fedora-review/ Description: Helpful functions for Python. Fedora Account System Username gotmax23
Bootstrap build that disables tests: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/build/6546265/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6546311 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2244974-python-domdf-python-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06546311-python-domdf-python-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.
I'm taking this.
Issues ====== [!]: 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 GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License BSD 2-Clause License", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0". 217 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-domdf-python- tools/licensecheck.txt => Some of these are spurious (LGPL-3.0-or-later in README.rst), others are not part of the resulting RPM (doc-sources/*) and some need clarification. [!]: Latest version is packaged. => version 3.7.0 has been released [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. => See rpmlint messages below. Looks like various shebangs need to be removed. [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. => The license file is duplicated. It is already included in the dist-inf: $ rpm -q --licensefiles -p python3-domdf-python-tools-3.6.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/domdf_python_tools-3.6.1.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-domdf-python-tools/LICENSE You may drop %license from %files. We also have %pyproject_save_files -l available now. You started that discussion (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YDIHALW766GRSYU3GL635QER2MQABML6/). ;) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "MIT License Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0 MIT License BSD 2-Clause License", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0". 217 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-domdf-python- tools/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 13845 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: [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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [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. [?]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-domdf-python-tools-3.6.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-domdf-python-tools-3.6.1-1.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/tmp5xj9p086')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/delegators.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/getters.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/import_tools.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/iterative.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/pagesizes/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/pagesizes/units.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/paths.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/pretty_print.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/stringlist.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/terminal.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/typing.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/utils.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/versions.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-domdf-python-tools.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/domdf_python_tools/words.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 15 errors, 0 warnings, 15 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-domdf-python-tools". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/domdfcoding/domdf_python_tools/archive/v3.6.1/domdf_python_tools-3.6.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aae8964c0a51cf9cd7b3e6cd7254d35236b5add95ce84c4e1e372f01d3c0b38f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aae8964c0a51cf9cd7b3e6cd7254d35236b5add95ce84c4e1e372f01d3c0b38f Requires -------- python3-domdf-python-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(natsort) python3.11dist(typing-extensions) Provides -------- python3-domdf-python-tools: python-domdf-python-tools python3-domdf-python-tools python3.11-domdf-python-tools python3.11dist(domdf-python-tools) python3dist(domdf-python-tools) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-domdf-python-tools --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, fonts, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
=> Maybe include CONTRIBUTING.rst as %doc
%pyproject_save_files -l is _not_ yet available. The PR to add it is still under review. There is no requirement to remove the %license from %files if %pyproject_save_files handles it. > Maybe include CONTRIBUTING.rst as %doc That file is not user facing documentation and doesn't make sense to include in the RPM package. I'll take a look at the licensing issue and update the package. Thanks for all the reviews!
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600401-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600401-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools-3.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Automated Fedora Review URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600401-python-domdf-python-tools/fedora-review/
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #6) > %pyproject_save_files -l is _not_ yet available. The PR to add it is still > under review. There is no requirement to remove the %license from %files if > %pyproject_save_files handles it. I didn't say it was a requirement. I said you 'may drop ...' and the item was still marked [x]. Hopefully, the `-l` flag becomes available soon. I, personally, don't like having to check manually if a license file is already included. Up until recently, I used the same approach of including the license file explicitly regardless of `%pyproject_save_files`. > > Maybe include CONTRIBUTING.rst as %doc > > That file is not user facing documentation and doesn't make sense to include > in the RPM package. Aren't developers users as well? Besides, you do include a similar file with much less value in `bindep`. But, again, not a requirement. > I'll take a look at the licensing issue and update the package. Thanks for > all the reviews! Thanks. The licensing is clear now and the package has been updated to the latest release. One remaining issue: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. => The shebangs are still present and cause rpmlint to emit errors.
Ah, I removed the shebangs from coincidence but not this one. I'll fix it. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600880-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600880-python-domdf-python-tools/python-domdf-python-tools-3.7.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Automated Fedora Review URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gotmax23/hatch-requirements-txt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06600880-python-domdf-python-tools/fedora-review/
APPROVED!
Thanks!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-domdf-python-tools
FEDORA-2023-78bfbdbe8c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-78bfbdbe8c
FEDORA-2023-78bfbdbe8c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.