Bug 2268249 - Review Request: python-docopt-ng - Humane command line arguments parser
Summary: Review Request: python-docopt-ng - Humane command line arguments parser
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nils Philippsen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/jazzband/docopt-ng
Depends On:
Blocks: 2267060
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2024-03-06 19:32 UTC by Carl George 🤠
Modified: 2024-03-06 21:26 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2024-03-06 21:26:18 UTC
Type: ---
nphilipp: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Carl George 🤠 2024-03-06 19:32:16 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07113503-python-docopt-ng/python-docopt-ng.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07113503-python-docopt-ng/python-docopt-ng-0.9.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

docopt-ng helps you create beautiful command-line interfaces.  The option
parser is generated based on the docstring that is passed to docopt function.
docopt parses the usage pattern ("Usage: ...") and option descriptions (lines
starting with dash "-") and ensures that the program invocation matches the
usage pattern; it parses options, arguments and commands based on that.  The
basic idea is that a good help message has all necessary information in it to
make a parser.

Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-03-06 19:36:18 UTC
Copr build:

Review template:

Please take a look if any issues were found.

This comment was created by the 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.

Comment 2 Nils Philippsen 2024-03-06 20:16:39 UTC
This package passes review and is APPROVED.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual 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
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: 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 =====

[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed

==> the Python package installer in use doesn’t care, so we don’t either 🤷

[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: python3-docopt-ng-0.9.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
======================================= rpmlint session starts =======================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmph7p2a5ty')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-docopt-ng.src: E: spelling-error ('docstring', '%description -l en_US docstring -> doc string, doc-string, stringing')
python3-docopt-ng.noarch: E: spelling-error ('docstring', '%description -l en_US docstring -> doc string, doc-string, stringing')
== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s ==

==> `docstring` is common Python terminology

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-docopt-ng.noarch: E: spelling-error ('docstring', '%description -l en_US docstring -> doc string, doc-string, stringing')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

==> same

Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/docopt_ng/docopt_ng-0.9.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 91c6da10b5bb6f2e9e25345829fb8278c78af019f6fc40887ad49b060483b1d7
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 91c6da10b5bb6f2e9e25345829fb8278c78af019f6fc40887ad49b060483b1d7

python3-docopt-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268249
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, R, Java, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl

Comment 3 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-03-06 21:06:37 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-docopt-ng

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2024-03-06 21:21:35 UTC
FEDORA-2024-8e42fc1037 (python-docopt-ng-0.9.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2024-03-06 21:26:18 UTC
FEDORA-2024-8e42fc1037 (python-docopt-ng-0.9.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.