Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-solc-ast.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A tool for exploring the solc abstract syntax tree Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=122888852 This library is used for the exploring Solidity compiler's output. Unfortunately tests require 30+ megabytes file which doesn't look practical for a tiny library.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7974530 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2309448-python-solc-ast/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07974530-python-solc-ast/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.
Issues found: - License - there is standalone LICENSE file which is not used in the %license, please fix - Naming - on the beginning of the spec file you refer to pypi_name solcast, but then using pypi_source of py-solc-ast ... please make it aligned The "solcast" (weather forecasting) is not in fedora, but apparently there is some potential name clash already in pypi and it might be usefull to bring this issue even to upstream. - shebangs - python files being installed to sitelib should be stripped from having shebangs as they are not meant to be directly executable (see rpmlint) 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. Note: MIT license, standalone file in the root of the project [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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mambroz/wrk/fedora/review/2309448-python-solc- ast/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Note: %autochangelog [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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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). [!]: 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: there is file LICENSE, which is not used 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6347 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. [-]: 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-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.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/tmpzxsv05hw')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-solc-ast.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A tool for exploring the solc abstract syntax tree. python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/dependencies.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/grammar.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/main.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/nodes.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 ========================================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.4 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 python3-solc-ast.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot A tool for exploring the solc abstract syntax tree. python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/dependencies.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/grammar.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/main.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-solc-ast.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/solcast/nodes.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/py-solc-ast/py-solc-ast-1.2.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fb5defdb6e82ca4175a0ecd1c04ce37134df0c141fc60b08a5068e119d7e9850 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb5defdb6e82ca4175a0ecd1c04ce37134df0c141fc60b08a5068e119d7e9850 Requires -------- python3-solc-ast (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-solc-ast: python-solc-ast python3-solc-ast python3.13-solc-ast python3.13dist(py-solc-ast) python3dist(py-solc-ast) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2309448 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Java, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
ping
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
Oh sorry, took it longer than I plan.
(In reply to Michal Ambroz from comment #2) > Issues found: > - License - there is standalone LICENSE file which is not used in the > %license, please fix No it's there thanks to "%pyproject_save_files -l" macro. Check it with rpm -qpL ``` Nostromo ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpm -qpL ../RPMS/noarch/python3-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/py_solc_ast-1.2.10.dist-info/LICENSE Nostromo ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: ``` > - Naming - on the beginning of the spec file you refer to pypi_name solcast, > but then using > pypi_source of py-solc-ast ... please make it aligned I changed it to match PyPi naming and to avoid confusion. > The "solcast" (weather forecasting) is not in fedora, but apparently > there is some potential name clash > already in pypi and it might be usefull to bring this issue even to > upstream. Will do. > - shebangs - python files being installed to sitelib should be stripped from > having shebangs as they are not meant to be directly executable (see rpmlint) Done. Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-solc-ast.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc40.src.rpm Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125083103
Ping, Michal! :)
Hello, I believe it is good to go, thank you.
Thank you!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-solc-ast
FEDORA-2025-19eb597d0f (python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-19eb597d0f
FEDORA-2025-9175574abf (python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9175574abf
FEDORA-2025-9175574abf 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-2025-9175574abf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9175574abf See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-19eb597d0f 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-2025-19eb597d0f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-19eb597d0f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-19eb597d0f (python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9175574abf (python-solc-ast-1.2.10-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.