spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/gourmand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179304-python-jstyleson/python-jstyleson.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/gourmand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179304-python-jstyleson/python-jstyleson-0.0.2%5E20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc42.src.rpm description: jstyleson is a python library to parse JSON with js-style comments. Trailing comma is also supported. JSON by standard does not allow comments and trailing comma, and the python standard json module does not offer options to parse such informal JSON. jstyleson try to make it happy with your js-style commented JSON, by first removing all elements inside (comments and trailing comma), then hand it to the standard json module. jstyleson supports parsing JSON with: - single-line comment - multi-line comment - inline comment - trailing comma fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8179308 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2321919-python-jstyleson/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08179308-python-jstyleson/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.
I'll review it
First of all the issue related to pytest (see comment #1 above) is a false positive and can be safely ignored. Apart from this I don't see any issues so here is my formal Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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/ ^^^ false positive. ===== 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 (MIT). [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format(autochagelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package dies not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [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: 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 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 2402 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: No python eggs. [-]: A package does not 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). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (Git snapshot). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify in %prep (upstream does not publish signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures (noarch package anyway). [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== 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-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.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/tmpt86z_a4h')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-jstyleson.src: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') python3-jstyleson.noarch: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') ======================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.1 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-jstyleson.noarch: E: spelling-error ('json', '%description -l en_US json -> son, j son, soon') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linjackson78/jstyleson/archive/8c47cc9e665b3b1744cccfaa7a650de5f3c575dd/jstyleson-8c47cc9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e8add7980a7574b5114185ff3fdea9b3ad6aa766f6c8253f8e77f59641fc2612 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e8add7980a7574b5114185ff3fdea9b3ad6aa766f6c8253f8e77f59641fc2612 Requires -------- python3-jstyleson (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-jstyleson: python-jstyleson python3-jstyleson python3.13-jstyleson python3.13dist(jstyleson) python3dist(jstyleson) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2321919 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Perl, PHP, C/C++, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
Thanks for the review.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jstyleson
FEDORA-2024-19e61b55a5 (python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19e61b55a5
FEDORA-2024-233aa2c925 (python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-233aa2c925
FEDORA-2024-19e61b55a5 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-2024-19e61b55a5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19e61b55a5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-233aa2c925 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-2024-233aa2c925 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-233aa2c925 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-19e61b55a5 (python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-233aa2c925 (python-jstyleson-0.0.2^20200323.8c47cc9-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.