Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.1.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc38.src.rpm Description: pyxlsb2 (a variant of pyxlsb - is an Excel 2007+ Binary Workbook (xlsb) parser written in Python.pyxslb2 offers the following improvements/changes in comparison to pyxlsb:1. By default, keeps all data in memory instead of creating temporary files. This is mainly to speed up the processing and also not changing the local filesystem during the processing. 2. relies on both "xl\workbook.bin" and... Fedora Account System Username: rebus
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108156292
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6575037 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246454-python-pyxlsb2/srpm-builds/06575037/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.
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.2.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc38.src.rpm - fix dependencies for rhel7 - missing build macro pytest - fix dependencies for rhel9 - missing python3-mock = do not fail on the pytest result
Copr build for epel7-epel9, f37-f40 - https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rebus/infosec/build/6576297/
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6577367 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246454-python-pyxlsb2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06577367-python-pyxlsb2/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.
- the License field is wrong, it should list both the Apache 2 and MIT license (preferably in the SPDX format) - upstream never published version 0.0.9, where did you obtain this version?
Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2.spec SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc40.src.rpm > - the License field is wrong, it should list both the Apache 2 and MIT license (preferably in the SPDX format) thanks ... added the reference to the second license as well > - upstream never published version 0.0.9, where did you obtain this version? Package is being build from git snapshot. The version is the version in the code of that snapshot, taken from the __version__ of the : https://github.com/DissectMalware/pyxlsb2/blob/master/pyxlsb2/__init__.py Full reference to the code is in the specfile so it is possible to download the code with spectool -g python-pyxlsb2.spec (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit_revision) As this is git snapshot and not full upstream release I am using the leading 0 in the in release numbers and also the reference to snapshot date and git commit. That way once/if the upstream will create real 0.0.9 release I can use release numbers starting 1 and continue in the releases in sortable way. (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_prerelease_versions https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots_2)
Created attachment 2043321 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6577367 to 7819354
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7819354 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246454-python-pyxlsb2/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07819354-python-pyxlsb2/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.
hello, please it is OK like this?
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
I'll review it.
Licensing is strange. I see the project contains two different licenses but how it applies to the source code (which is which) - I can't find. You should clarify it with upstream eventually. I can't find any issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-mock is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ^^^ I don't see it as a blocker. You should propose switching to built-in unittest.mock moduel which is included in Python since version 3.3. ===== 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 (ASL 2.0 and MIT). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. See my note about licensing above. I believe we should clarify it with upstream eventually but I don't see it as a blocker. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does n ot contain systemd file(s). [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: 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 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. Note: Multiple Release: tags found [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 3535 bytes in 1 files. [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: [-]: 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). [?]: I didn't test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (git snapshot). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not publish signatures). [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and almost all tests pass on (some tests fail on obscure arches) . [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc42.noarch.rpm python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc42.src.rpm ======================================================================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ====================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp86dlc7h7')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python-pyxlsb2.src: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') ================================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 1.5 s ================================================================================================= ^^^ false positives. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1 python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('relsworkbook', '%description -l en_US relsworkbook -> workbook') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('rels', '%description -l en_US rels -> eels, rel, res') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('boundsheets', '%description -l en_US boundsheets -> bound sheets, bound-sheets, groundsheets') python3-pyxlsb2.noarch: E: spelling-error ('macrosheets', '%description -l en_US macrosheets -> macro sheets, macro-sheets, broadsheets') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DissectMalware/pyxlsb2/archive/0a1ff1be329aa282ecbc347ff44fc6c07351685b/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0a1ff1b.tar.gz#/python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-20220509-0a1ff1b.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 59fdeba1eb81af63ed2414d27e2ea38c973d6a4c0240b2f827692063ed5c5762 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 59fdeba1eb81af63ed2414d27e2ea38c973d6a4c0240b2f827692063ed5c5762 Requires -------- python3-pyxlsb2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyxlsb2: python-pyxlsb2 python3-pyxlsb2 python3.13-pyxlsb2 python3.13dist(pyxlsb2) python3dist(pyxlsb2) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2246454 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Java, C/C++, Perl, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
> Licensing is strange. > I see the project contains two different licenses but how it applies to the source code (which is which) - I can't find. You should clarify it with upstream eventually. The pyxlsb2 is released under the Apache-2.0 license (authored by DissectMalware). The project pyxlsb2 is build on top of the original pyxlsb authored by William Turner and originally imported with the MIT license (with possibility to sublicense). It can be said that the pyxlsb2 is now Apache-2.0 licensed, as that is more strict of the two licenses, but presence of the original MIT license text is needed to fulfill the requirements of the original license and to attribute credits to the original author.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyxlsb2
Ping, Michal! Could you please build this package (and therefore close this ticket)? Looks like you forgot about this little buddy :)
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4cdf96ec (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4cdf96ec
FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f4a8d84265 (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f4a8d84265
indeed - I forgot to build that, here it comes
FEDORA-2025-9f30b38a5b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9f30b38a5b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9f30b38a5b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f4a8d84265 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-2025-f4a8d84265 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4cdf96ec has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4cdf96ec See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f4a8d84265 (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-eb4cdf96ec (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-65d67a704f (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9f30b38a5b (python-pyxlsb2-0.0.9-0.3.20220509git0a1ff1b.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.