Spec URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/python-pretty-yaml.spec SRPM URL: https://wojnilowicz.fedorapeople.org/python-pretty-yaml-24.12.1-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: PyYAML-based python module to produce a bit more pretty and human-readable YAML-serialized data. This module is for serialization only, see ruamel.yaml module for literate YAML parsing (keeping track of comments, spacing, line/column numbers of values, etc). Fedora Account System Username: wojnilowicz
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8461149 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2335144-python-pretty-yaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08461149-python-pretty-yaml/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.
LGTM expect that version 25.1.0 is out. Consider upgrading it before uploading to Fedora. Apart from that I can't find 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/ ^^^ This one is 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 (WTFPL). [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format (autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: No separate 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. [-]: No extremely large documentation 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. 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: No Python eggs. [-]: The package is not known to be used by another package via an egg interface. [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 (autogenerated). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x/!]: Latest version is packaged (almost - 25.1.0 is out, see my comment above). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: No extra patches. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify (upstream does not provide gpg-signatures). [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds 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]: 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-pretty-yaml-24.12.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-pretty-yaml-24.12.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-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/tmpp6fefoxf')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pretty-yaml.src: E: spelling-error ('ruamel', '%description -l en_US ruamel -> caramel') python3-pretty-yaml.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ruamel', '%description -l en_US ruamel -> caramel') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 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-pretty-yaml.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ruamel', '%description -l en_US ruamel -> caramel') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 4 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mk-fg/pretty-yaml/archive/refs/tags/24.12.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4135450b5f7b77d3f8ab0681a97164a2ee55a67343c9c7e7637c6a3a7eef2e56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4135450b5f7b77d3f8ab0681a97164a2ee55a67343c9c7e7637c6a3a7eef2e56 Requires -------- python3-pretty-yaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(pyyaml) Provides -------- python3-pretty-yaml: python-pretty-yaml python3-pretty-yaml python3.13-pretty-yaml python3.13dist(pyaml) python3dist(pyaml) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2335144 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, PHP, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pretty-yaml
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > LGTM expect that version 25.1.0 is out. Consider upgrading it before > uploading to Fedora. > > Apart from that I can't find any issues so here is my formal Thanks. With 25.1.0 I can drop my patch.
FEDORA-2025-fc7946d97b (python-pretty-yaml-25.1.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-fc7946d97b
FEDORA-2025-fc7946d97b (python-pretty-yaml-25.1.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.