Description: A client library for accessing the Forgejo API SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-1.fc41.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7113800 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268288-python-pyforgejo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07113800-python-pyforgejo/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.
It does not build in rawhide at present. Perhaps relax dependency version requirements for httpx [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8171161 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268288-python-pyforgejo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08171161-python-pyforgejo/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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, fixed. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc42.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo.spec
Created attachment 2053511 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8171161 to 8172474
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8172474 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2268288-python-pyforgejo/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08172474-python-pyforgejo/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text 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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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". 607 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python- pyforgejo/2268288-python-pyforgejo/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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 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 6365 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc42.noarch.rpm python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc42.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/tmpwjvx0tkt')] checks: 32, packages: 2 ========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 8.6 s ========= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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, 6 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 7.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyforgejo/pyforgejo-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e483fecfa6919c7386ddca111012eba4da2ae3c36c3b1a7d9fc7526ffda3c59 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e483fecfa6919c7386ddca111012eba4da2ae3c36c3b1a7d9fc7526ffda3c59 Requires -------- python3-pyforgejo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(python-dateutil) >= 2.8) python(abi) python3.13dist(attrs) python3.13dist(httpx) Provides -------- python3-pyforgejo: python-pyforgejo python3-pyforgejo python3.13-pyforgejo python3.13dist(pyforgejo) python3dist(pyforgejo) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268288 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Perhaps change %pyproject_save_files %pypi_name to %pyproject_save_files %pypi_name -L and for the files section have %files -n python3-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files} %doc README.md %license LICENSE See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_convenience_macros Future versions will allow specifying license file in pyproject.toml: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/ but it is not supported yet. The above will result in a duplicate license file, but it should be possible to remove in future. b) Tests in upstream repository require network access, so cannot be run. May want to use source from upstream rather than PyPI in case test suite enables running of some tests that do not need network access. c) Approved. Please make change (a) before import. Change (b) is optional.
Thanks! I've fixed a. b. would require a tagged release, which they don't yet provide but soon will.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyforgejo
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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-dfbdf33d93 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.