Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fedora-sig-onboard/python-fedora-sig-onboard.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fedora-sig-onboard/python-fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: fedora-sig-onboard is a simple tool to onboard a Fedora package onto the relevant SIG. It will attempt to add the SIG to the package ACL, update the bugzilla assignee and add the package to Anitya. Rust and Golang packages are currently supported, and will be respectively onboarded onto the Rust SIG and the Go SIG. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=110665780
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6782736 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2255561-python-fedora-sig-onboard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06782736-python-fedora-sig-onboard/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 needs a couple of small changes before I can approve. Let me know once these are fixed please and I'll approve. * E: spelling-error ('bugzilla', '%description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, buzzkill') * E: spelling-error ('onboarded', '%description -l en_US onboarded -> on boarded, on-boarded, onboard ed') These would also be nice, but wont block approval: * W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-sig-onboard * Add %license LICENSE to %files 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2255561-python-fedora-sig- onboard/licensecheck.txt > MIT 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > See rpmlint's spelling issues [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1218 bytes in 1 files. [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?) [X]: 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. [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. ===== 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: fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpv6ezkfwe')] checks: 31, packages: 2 fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-sig-onboard =============================================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s =============================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: E: spelling-error ('bugzilla', '%description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, buzzkill') fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: E: spelling-error ('onboarded', '%description -l en_US onboarded -> on boarded, on-boarded, onboard ed') fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: W: python-missing-require click fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyxdg fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests fedora-sig-onboard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-sig-onboard 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/fedora-sig-onboard/fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 671f2dd5fe944956d38dfa2c3abf3cb48e3b36bec1873fa593924aabaa96e2f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 671f2dd5fe944956d38dfa2c3abf3cb48e3b36bec1873fa593924aabaa96e2f4 Requires -------- fedora-sig-onboard (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.12dist(click) python3.12dist(pyxdg) python3.12dist(requests) Provides -------- fedora-sig-onboard: fedora-sig-onboard python3.12dist(fedora-sig-onboard) python3dist(fedora-sig-onboard) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2255561 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, Ocaml, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thanks for the review! > * E: spelling-error ('bugzilla', '%description -l en_US bugzilla -> Bugzilla, buzzkill') I fixed this upstream and will fix in the package description > * E: spelling-error ('onboarded', '%description -l en_US onboarded -> on boarded, on-boarded, onboard ed') This is a real word, the spellchecker is wrong: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onboarding > * W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-sig-onboard I'll write one upstream eventually and get it included, but not right now. > * Add %license LICENSE to %files This isn't actually needed when using the pyproject macros (as this package does), because they already pull in and tag the license file properly: $ rpm -qlp fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm [...] /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/fedora_sig_onboard-0.1.0.dist-info/LICENSE [...] See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more details (search for %license in the README).
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fedora-sig-onboard/python-fedora-sig-onboard.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-fedora-sig-onboard/python-fedora-sig-onboard-0.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Changelog: - bugzilla -> Bugzilla in the description
Thanks for making the change, apologies for not noticing the license being grabbed automatically. Package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fedora-sig-onboard
FEDORA-2023-23fe9eb8f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-23fe9eb8f5
FEDORA-2023-23fe9eb8f5 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-752f456ff3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-752f456ff3
FEDORA-2023-d946879d5d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d946879d5d
FEDORA-2023-d946879d5d 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-d946879d5d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d946879d5d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-752f456ff3 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-2023-752f456ff3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-752f456ff3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-752f456ff3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-d946879d5d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.