Bug 2326183 - Review Request: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages - A schema package for koji-fedoramessaging
Summary: Review Request: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages - A schema package for k...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/fedora-infra/%{src...
Whiteboard: Trivial
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-11-14 08:19 UTC by Mattia Verga
Modified: 2024-12-01 11:54 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-12-01 11:54:21 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8257381 to 8323979 (1.30 KB, patch)
2024-11-28 17:03 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Mattia Verga 2024-11-14 08:19:51 UTC
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec
SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
Description: A schema package for koji-fedoramessaging, the fedora-messaging plugin for Koji.
Fedora Account System Username: mattia

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-14 08:22:48 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8257381
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08257381-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/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.

Comment 2 Mattia Verga 2024-11-14 08:29:16 UTC
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125843930

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2024-11-14 19:18:00 UTC
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/


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU
     General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 13
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-
     messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/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.
[ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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:
[!]: 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)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.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/tmpd1jw37y_')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 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-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/k/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d91b63d49001438e6eef2c5d0b53c7b963dc8e5043e2390961b5cda11b63e05f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d91b63d49001438e6eef2c5d0b53c7b963dc8e5043e2390961b5cda11b63e05f


Requires
--------
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(fedora-messaging)



Provides
--------
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages:
    python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3.13-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3.13dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)
    python3dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec      2024-11-14 20:45:27.897309961 +0300
+++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm-unpacked/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec    2024-11-09 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global srcname koji-fedoramessaging-messages
 %global modname koji_fedoramessaging_messages
@@ -54,3 +64,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Sat Nov 09 2024 John Doe <packager> - 1.2.5-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2326183
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Licensing seems like it should be GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only if so,
possibly the GPL-3.0 text should be added to the repository, if not all files
should have the GPL-2.0 text.

GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
----------------------------------------
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/base.py

GNU General Public License, Version 2
-------------------------------------
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/LICENSE

GNU General Public License, Version 3
-------------------------------------
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/__init__.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/build.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/package.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/repo.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/rpm.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/tag.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/task.py
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/tests/test_base.py

Comment 4 Mattia Verga 2024-11-15 09:19:55 UTC
Licensing issue reported upstream. Lets wait for info, thanks.

Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-28 17:03:42 UTC
Created attachment 2060208 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8257381 to 8323979

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-28 17:03:45 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8323979
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08323979-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/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.

Comment 8 Benson Muite 2024-11-28 18:18:05 UTC
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/


===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
     3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 9 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-
     messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-
     messages/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 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 0 bytes in 0 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:
[!]: 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)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.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/tmp84s_y87k')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 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-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fedora-infra/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/archive/2220a1e39d7ab0fcb48fc0fbd9ff614b6e81bf80/koji-fedoramessaging-messages-2220a1e39d7ab0fcb48fc0fbd9ff614b6e81bf80.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 78db3c326a266e7659d3a396c728ffb7c70f96ed3b9d6465bf1a01eb5c11cc3a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 78db3c326a266e7659d3a396c728ffb7c70f96ed3b9d6465bf1a01eb5c11cc3a


Requires
--------
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.13dist(fedora-messaging)



Provides
--------
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages:
    python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3.13-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
    python3.13dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)
    python3dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec     2024-11-28 20:30:11.102156842 +0300
+++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm-unpacked/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec  2024-11-28 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 %global forgeurl https://github.com/fedora-infra/koji-fedoramessaging-messages
 %global commit 2220a1e39d7ab0fcb48fc0fbd9ff614b6e81bf80
@@ -58,3 +68,6 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Thu Nov 28 2024 John Doe <packager> - 1.2.5-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2326183
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Approved
b) If time allows, review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329377
would be appreciated.

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-12-01 10:41:02 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2024-12-01 11:51:12 UTC
FEDORA-2024-19901a6376 (python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19901a6376

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2024-12-01 11:54:21 UTC
FEDORA-2024-19901a6376 (python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.