Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description: python-soundfile |version| |python| |status| |license||contributors| |downloads|The soundfile < module is an audio library based on libsndfile, CFFI and NumPy. Full documentation is available on soundfile module can read and write sound files. File reading/writing is supported through libsndfile < which is a free, cross-platform, open-source (LGPL) library for reading and writing many... SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-soundfile/python-soundfile-0.12.1-1.fc41.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-soundfile/python-soundfile.spec Reproducible: Always
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8273473 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273022-python-soundfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08273473-python-soundfile/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.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-soundfile/python-soundfile-0.13.1-1.fc44.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-soundfile/python-soundfile.spec
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9808580 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273022-python-soundfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09808580-python-soundfile/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.
It does seem like it can build if missing dependency is added: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139044109
Updated, same URLs.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-soundfile/2273022-python- soundfile/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 15882 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 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]: 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. [ ]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-soundfile [ ]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-soundfile-0.13.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-soundfile-doc-0.13.1-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-soundfile-0.13.1-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp87_h3p_m')] checks: 32, packages: 3 python-soundfile-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized soundfile documentation python-soundfile.src: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', 'Summary(en_US) libsndfile -> landfill') python-soundfile.src: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', '%description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill') python3-soundfile.noarch: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', 'Summary(en_US) libsndfile -> landfill') python3-soundfile.noarch: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', '%description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill') 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 1.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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: 2 python-soundfile-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized soundfile documentation python3-soundfile.noarch: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', 'Summary(en_US) libsndfile -> landfill') python3-soundfile.noarch: E: spelling-error ('libsndfile', '%description -l en_US libsndfile -> landfill') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/soundfile/soundfile-0.13.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2c68dab1e30297317080a5b43df57e302584c49e2942defdde0acccc53f0e5b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2c68dab1e30297317080a5b43df57e302584c49e2942defdde0acccc53f0e5b Requires -------- python3-soundfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(cffi) python3.14dist(numpy) python3dist(cffi) python3dist(numpy) python-soundfile-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-soundfile: python-soundfile python3-soundfile python3.14-soundfile python3.14dist(soundfile) python3dist(soundfile) python-soundfile-doc: python-soundfile-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2273022 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, R, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139063738 b) Please add python3-libs to the package dependencies to remove the directory ownership warnings. c) Approved. Please fix (b) before import.
Will do, thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-soundfile
FEDORA-2025-374df91aee (python-soundfile-0.13.1-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-374df91aee
FEDORA-2025-374df91aee has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-374df91aee \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-374df91aee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-374df91aee (python-soundfile-0.13.1-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.