Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08028791-pulp-cli/pulp-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08028791-pulp-cli/pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: pulp-cli provides the "pulp" command, able to communicate with the Pulp3 API in a more natural way than plain http. Specifically, resources can not only be referenced by their href, but also their natural key (e.g. name). It also handles waiting on tasks on behalf of the user. Fedora Account System Username: x-9c4
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8030838 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2313276-pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08030838-pulp-cli/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.
Hello Matthias, thank you for the package :-) Overall the package looks really good. Only a few issues. > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8030838 > (failed) This package depends on python-pulp-glue from RHBZ 2313205. It was already accepted and successfully built in Fedora. Please ignore the failure > # BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros A leftover comment in the specfile > Recommends: python3-pygments python3-click-shell python3-secretstorage This is perfectly fine, but from personal experience, I'd recommend writing it like this: Recommends: python3-pygments Recommends: python3-click-shell Recommends: python3-secretstorage It will be more readable once the list of dependencies starts growing, diffs will be more understandable and so on. > Issues: > ======= > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python3-toml is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Rpmlint complains about this ^^. Looking at the python-toml package here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-toml it says "This package is deprecated, use tomllib from the Python standard library or tomli/tomli-w". Is that something you can do? > pulp-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulp Just a warning ... if you have a manpage for the tool, please install it through the package. If you don't please ignore.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08040882-pulp-cli/pulp-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08040882-pulp-cli/pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Thank you for the update. > Issues: > ======= > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python3-toml is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Looks good but this issue still remains.
Created attachment 2047801 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8030838 to 8042179
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8042179 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2313276-pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08042179-pulp-cli/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.
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4) > Thank you for the update. > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > > Note: python3-toml is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ > > Looks good but this issue still remains. Oh, I see. There's a hard no for deprecated packages. We introduced that dependency long ago and we didn't move off of it yet, because we still want to support Python 3.8. and tomllib was introduced in pyhton 3.11. Also it does not write that language. I guess we need to prioritize this work. Maybe I'll add it as a patch here for now.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08045429-pulp-cli/pulp-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/x-9c4/pulp-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08045429-pulp-cli/pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 316 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/pulp-cli/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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 351 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.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/tmp5xzdx9de')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pulp-cli.noarch: E: spelling-error ('href', '%description -l en_US href -> ref, pref, h ref') pulp-cli.src: E: spelling-error ('href', '%description -l en_US href -> ref, pref, h ref') pulp-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pulp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 16 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pulp-cli". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pulp/pulp-cli/archive/0.29.1/pulp-cli-0.29.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dfc3a7a1546a20e5e57a456a950c82f3c43c20de9dd0b0712d8eb14be0883d45 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dfc3a7a1546a20e5e57a456a950c82f3c43c20de9dd0b0712d8eb14be0883d45 Requires -------- pulp-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(click) < 9~~ with python3.13dist(click) >= 8) (python3.13dist(packaging) < 25~~ with python3.13dist(packaging) >= 20) (python3.13dist(pyyaml) < 6.1~~ with python3.13dist(pyyaml) >= 5.3) (python3.13dist(schema) < 0.8~~ with python3.13dist(schema) >= 0.7.5) (python3.13dist(tomli-w) < 1.1~~ with python3.13dist(tomli-w) >= 1) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(pulp-glue) Provides -------- pulp-cli: pulp-cli python3.13dist(pulp-cli) python3dist(pulp-cli) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pulp-cli --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, PHP, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pulp-cli
FEDORA-2024-c715d31b75 (pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c715d31b75
FEDORA-2024-125425dfdd (pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-125425dfdd
FEDORA-2024-c715d31b75 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-c715d31b75 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c715d31b75 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-125425dfdd 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-2024-125425dfdd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-125425dfdd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-c715d31b75 (pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-125425dfdd (pulp-cli-0.29.1-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.