Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/python-propcache.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/python-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Module for fast property caching. Fedora Account System Username: fab
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=124752823
Just glancing at the output of fedora-review: - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/ben/fedora/review/2318349-python-propcache/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ The Source0 field in the spec file references the GitHub archive, but the uploaded SRPM contains the PyPI sdist instead. Could you please upload a new SRPM with the source archive matching its URL?
*** Bug 2327301 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
> Summary: https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache This is likely a copy-paste error. > Source0: https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz The source number is unnecessary.
Thanks for the input. New files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/python-propcache.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/python-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8325471 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2318349-python-propcache/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08325471-python-propcache/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ 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 Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ This finding is spurious. The package built with pytest 8. - Version 0.2.1 is now available. https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache/releases/tag/v0.2.1 It doesn’t look like this will require any significant packaging changes. Please update at your earliest convenience. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2318349-python-propcache/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.13 (Spurious finding; these directories are owned by python3-libs.) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 5209 bytes in 2 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]: 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. (Tests pass.) [!]: 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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=127529751 [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) OK: the difference is only in whitespace. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm python-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpjsqj2uz_')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-propcache: /usr/lib64/python3.13/site-packages/propcache/_helpers_c.cpython-313-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache/archive/v0.2.0/propcache-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1a600b0d900f12b9129ad69246207d1d37f6d48f72df9f84b4f59fddb95885e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1a600b0d900f12b9129ad69246207d1d37f6d48f72df9f84b4f59fddb95885e Requires -------- python3-propcache (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-propcache: python-propcache python3-propcache python3-propcache(x86-64) python3.13-propcache python3.13dist(propcache) python3dist(propcache) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/ben/fedora/review/2318349-python-propcache/srpm/python-propcache.spec 2025-01-03 18:11:30.042558624 -0500 +++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2318349-python-propcache/srpm-unpacked/python-propcache.spec 2024-11-28 19:00:00.000000000 -0500 @@ -8,5 +8,5 @@ License: Apache-2.0 URL: https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache -Source: https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Source: https://github.com/aio-libs/propcache/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz BuildRequires: gcc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2318349 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, C/C++, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Fabian, I know it took me a while to return to this review and finish it, but are you planning to import the package soon? It would be nice to get the 3.11 series of aiohttp packaged. Let me know what I can do to help.
Fabian, Any plans to import this package soon, so that we can work on updating python-aiohttp?
Anything I can do to help get this back on track?
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-propcache
FEDORA-2025-5a252da547 (python-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5a252da547
FEDORA-2025-5a252da547 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-2025-5a252da547 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5a252da547 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b53fd9d1bd (python-propcache-0.2.0-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b53fd9d1bd
Thanks for the review.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b53fd9d1bd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b53fd9d1bd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-5a252da547 (python-propcache-0.2.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-b53fd9d1bd (python-propcache-0.2.0-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.