Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-puremagic.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-puremagic-1.28-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: puremagic is a pure python module that will identify a file based off it’s magic numbers. It is designed to be minimalistic and inherently cross platform compatible. It is also designed to be a stand in for python-magic, it incorporates the functions from_file(filename[, mime]) and from_string(string[, mime]) however the magic_file() and magic_string() are more powerful and will also display confidence and duplicate matches. It does NOT try to match files off non-magic string. In other words it will not search for a string within a certain window of bytes like others might. Advantages over using a wrapper for ‘file’ or ‘libmagic’: - Faster - Lightweight - Cross platform compatible - No dependencies Disadvantages: - Does not have as many file types - No multilingual comments - Duplications due to small or reused magic numbers (Help fix the first two disadvantages by contributing!) Fedora Account System Username: gui1ty
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8196958 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2323072-python-puremagic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08196958-python-puremagic/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.
Trim description and package is good to go. Package Review ============== Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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/ ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 [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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Please trim description somewhat. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage Note: Documentation size is 10827 bytes in 3 files. [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. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x ]: Latest version is packaged. (1.28) [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]: 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). Changes is due to rpmautospec [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). (Harmless spelling) Rpmlint ------- python-puremagic.src: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', '%description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') python3-puremagic.noarch: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', '%description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/cdgriffith/puremagic/archive/1.28/puremagic-1.28.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1e3e1d5b2d3fd58f98ba05775b21b134ce105d423543a497bedaebdbc1309c6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1e3e1d5b2d3fd58f98ba05775b21b134ce105d423543a497bedaebdbc1309c6 Requires -------- python3-puremagic (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-puremagic: python-puremagic python3-puremagic python3.13-puremagic python3.13dist(puremagic) python3dist(puremagic) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- 2323072-python-puremagic/srpm/python-puremagic.spec 2024-11-16 16:32:17.381669800 +0100 +++ 2323072-python-puremagic/srpm-unpacked/python-puremagic.spec 2024-10-31 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.2) ...
Thanks for the review. > Trim description and package is good to go. The description is just a copy of upstream's README. That's quite common practice and also what is kind of recommended [1]. What would you like to see trimmed? [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_1_banner/#_sections
> The description is just a copy of upstream's README. That's quite common practice and also what is kind of recommended [1]. > What would you like to see > trimmed? Remove markup and make it more suitable for non technical users.
I revised the description, made it more concise: Spec URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-puremagic.spec SRPM URL: https://gui1ty.fedorapeople.org/review/python-puremagic-1.28-2.fc42.src.rpm
Created attachment 2059375 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8196958 to 8302304
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8302304 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2323072-python-puremagic/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08302304-python-puremagic/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 is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-puremagic