Spec URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiohttp.spec SRPM URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiohttp-3.9.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Async http client/server framework Fedora Account System Username: astra This is an unretirement request
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6987803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262894-python-aiohttp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06987803-python-aiohttp/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiohttp Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
please ignore this request for now, I've mixed up two packages (python-aiohttp is actually an active package, and python-aiostream is the retired one)
Spec URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiostream.spec SRPM URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiostream-0.5.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Generator-based operators for asynchronous iteration Fedora Account System Username: astra This is an unretirement request, now hopefully for the actually correct package.
Taking this, we need to keep vdirsyncer alive :)
* The license is incorrect, it should be GPL-3.0-only? (per setup.py and PKG-INFO) Everything else seems fine
That's absolutely correct, I've missed that from the other package. Is fixed now, new URLs as below. Spec URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiostream.spec SRPM URL: https://ionic.at/python-aiostream-0.5.2-2.fc40.src.rpm (or fc41, as it switched just recently, so I've built it for both) Thanks for catching it.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7027803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262894-python-aiostream/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07027803-python-aiostream/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.
Thanks for updating! LGTM. One nit: if you switch to GitHub for the source you can actually run upstream's unit tests, it just needs pytest see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags for the format for using GitHub tags Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiostream See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2262894-python- aiostream/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/lib/python3.12/site- packages => false positive. aiostream requires python(abi) provided by python3 and that pulls in python3-libs which owns these two directories [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]: 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 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 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 9303 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. [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 ===== 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. => suggest switching to GitHub for source, since upstream strips tests before uploading to PyPI. Looks like it just needs pytest to run https://github.com/vxgmichel/aiostream [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-aiostream-0.5.2-2.fc41.noarch.rpm python-aiostream-0.5.2-2.fc41.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/tmpzovhfnta')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-aiostream.src: E: spelling-error ('itertools', '%description -l en_US itertools -> iterators') python3-aiostream.noarch: E: spelling-error ('itertools', '%description -l en_US itertools -> iterators') ====================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.4 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 python3-aiostream.noarch: E: spelling-error ('itertools', '%description -l en_US itertools -> iterators') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/aiostream/aiostream-0.5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b71b519a2d66c38f0872403ab86417955b77352f08d9ad02ad46fc3926b389f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b71b519a2d66c38f0872403ab86417955b77352f08d9ad02ad46fc3926b389f4 Requires -------- python3-aiostream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(typing-extensions) Provides -------- python3-aiostream: python-aiostream python3-aiostream python3.12-aiostream python3.12dist(aiostream) python3dist(aiostream) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2262894 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++, R, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Package is unretired, tests are activated. Thanks!
FEDORA-2024-ed4772007e (python-aiostream-0.5.2-3.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ed4772007e
@(In reply to David Kaufmann from comment #9) > Package is unretired, tests are activated. Thanks! Looks like the F40 build was done after F40 updates are no longer automatically pushed to Bodhi. I just noticed vdirsyncer is still FTI on F40 after updating my test machine so I created the update for you
thanks!
FEDORA-2024-ed4772007e (python-aiostream-0.5.2-3.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.