SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-timelib/python-timelib-0.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-timelib/python-timelib.spec Description: timelib is a short wrapper around php's internal timelib module. It currently only provides a few functions:timelib.strtodatetime:>>> timelib.strtodatetime("today") datetime.datetime(2009, 6, 23, 0, 0) >>> timelib.strtodatetime("today") datetime.datetime(2009, 6, 23, 0, 0) >>> timelib.strtodatetime("next friday") datetime.datetime(2009, 6, 26, 0, 0) >>> timelib.strtodatetime("29 feb 2008 -108...
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6876727 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257440-python-timelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06876727-python-timelib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-cython0.29 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 will take this review. I have several packages awaiting review here: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/soplex-and-scip/98387. They are all more complex than yours, so don't feel like you to need to review one in exchange for this. But if you happen to have some time free and are feeling charitable, I would be very grateful.
Thanks! I am, so I'll take the zstr review.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The use of the %pypi_source macro without a module name is deprecated; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pypi_source. In this case, the following would work: Source0: %pypi_source %{pypi_name} - Remove the -t flag from %pyproject_buildrequires, since this package does not use tox. - FYI, the existing egg info does not need to be removed in %prep, as that applies to binary eggs only. (It doesn't hurt anything to do so, but it doesn't help anything either.) - It appears that the code in ext-date-lib comes from PHP, and is the reason for the PHP license declaration. So ... the rest of the code is under the Zlib license? If that is correct, a note about it above the License field would be great. (See "If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec" below.) - Please ask upstream to add a license file that explicitly spells out the license terms. (This is a SHOULD, not a MUST.) - The python guidelines state that if there is no test suite, a basic smoke test MUST be run in %check. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests In this case, the %pyproject_check_import macro does that. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "PHP License v3.01 and/or zlib License", "PHP License v3.01". 15 files have unknown license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 2027 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 [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. [!]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [!]: %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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-timelib-0.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-timelib-debugsource-0.3.0-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm python-timelib-0.3.0-1.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/tmpwbvpuckw')] checks: 31, packages: 3 ================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 2 python3-timelib.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('english', 'Summary(en_US) english -> English, glisten') python3-timelib.x86_64: E: spelling-error ("php's", "%description -l en_US php's -> pep's, phi's, pip's") python3-timelib.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('strtodatetime', '%description -l en_US strtodatetime -> accommodate') python3-timelib.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('friday', '%description -l en_US friday -> Friday, friary') python3-timelib.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('feb', '%description -l en_US feb -> Feb, deb, fen') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-timelib: /usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/timelib.cpython-312-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/timelib/timelib-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d1b22706557186e6058da88ba0f85837401b2ae9de157f59353dc978d825187a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1b22706557186e6058da88ba0f85837401b2ae9de157f59353dc978d825187a Requires -------- python3-timelib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-timelib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-timelib: python-timelib python3-timelib python3-timelib(x86-64) python3.12-timelib python3.12dist(timelib) python3dist(timelib) python-timelib-debugsource: python-timelib-debugsource python-timelib-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2257440 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, Ruby, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you, updated. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-timelib/python-timelib-0.3.0-2.fc39.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-timelib/python-timelib.spec
Created attachment 2007973 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6876727 to 6877239
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877239 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257440-python-timelib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06877239-python-timelib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-cython0.29 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
That looks great. This package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-timelib
Thank you!
FEDORA-2024-271c8d8e47 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-271c8d8e47
FEDORA-2024-271c8d8e47 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-2024-271c8d8e47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-271c8d8e47 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-271c8d8e47 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.