Spec URL: https://github.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/blob/0.1.2/python-timeslot.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/releases/download/0.1.2/python-timeslot-0.1.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Class for working with time slots that have an arbitrary start and end. Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7107730 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267973-python-timeslot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07107730-python-timeslot/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.
Initially needed for https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server but switched to https://github.com/ActivityWatch/aw-server-rust which seems to not need it.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/master/python-timeslot.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/releases/download/0.1.2/python-timeslot-af35445-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Class for working with time slots that have an arbitrary start and end. Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz Reopening and kindly asking for a review. It's in the dependency chain for building https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch (aw-core specifically) One can see that it's working at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/wojnilowicz/activitywatch/ One can see fedora-review at https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wojnilowicz/review-python-timeslot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07402732-python-timeslot/fedora-review/review.txt
Created attachment 2031162 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7107730 to 7402840
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7402840 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267973-python-timeslot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07402840-python-timeslot/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.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/master/python-timeslot.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/wojnilowicz/timeslot-fedora/releases/download/0.1.2/python-timeslot-0.1.2.20240505.af35445-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Class for working with time slots that have an arbitrary start and end. Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz Reopening and kindly asking for a review. It's in the dependency chain for building https://github.com/ActivityWatch/activitywatch (aw-core specifically) One can see that it's working at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/wojnilowicz/activitywatch/
Created attachment 2031423 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7402840 to 7412630
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7412630 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2267973-python-timeslot/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07412630-python-timeslot/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.
I will take this review.
This package is APPROVED. The spec file has "%bcond_without check" at the top, but the conditional is not used anywhere. Perhaps it should be removed? If you do have a reason to keep it, consider changing to the new syntax: "%bcond check 1". Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 1555 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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. [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). [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-timeslot-0.1.2^20240505.af35445-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-timeslot-0.1.2^20240505.af35445-1.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/tmpkvf0fa8l')] checks: 32, packages: 2 =========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ErikBjare/timeslot/archive/af35445e96cbb2f3fb671a75aac6aa93e4e7e7a6/timeslot-af35445.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c7a178a0ac0f1f4e753d2d6bac47e863987933f23485dd946ca38de2324c435e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c7a178a0ac0f1f4e753d2d6bac47e863987933f23485dd946ca38de2324c435e Requires -------- python3-timeslot (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-timeslot: python-timeslot python3-timeslot python3.12-timeslot python3.12dist(timeslot) python3dist(timeslot) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2267973 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, Haskell, R, Java, Perl, fonts, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-timeslot
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #10) > This package is APPROVED. Thanks. > The spec file has "%bcond_without check" at the top, but the conditional is > not used anywhere. Perhaps it should be removed? If you do have a reason to > keep it, consider changing to the new syntax: "%bcond check 1". I removed it. There was no other reason than the requirement at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Rust/#_rpm_macros that I wrongly overstretched to other packages as well.
FEDORA-2024-81867579a2 (python-timeslot-0.1.2^20240509.af35445-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-81867579a2
FEDORA-2024-81867579a2 (python-timeslot-0.1.2^20240509.af35445-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.