Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-donfig/python-donfig.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-donfig/python-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Donfig is a python library meant to make configuration easier for other Python packages. Donfig can be configured programmatically, by environment variables, or from YAML files in standard locations.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8544957 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338798-python-donfig/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08544957-python-donfig/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-donfig/python-donfig.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-donfig/python-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc45.src.rpm - Fix License comments
Created attachment 2138551 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8544957 to 10405278
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10405278 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2338798-python-donfig/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10405278-python-donfig/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. It seems files with copyright by Anaconda are BSD and copyright by donfig are under the MIT license? If so, please add a comment to the spec [!]: There are some shebangs on installed python files, that do not seem to be meant to be executed (by users): python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/config_obj.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_config.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/utils.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- donfig/licensecheck.txt [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. It seems files with copyright by Anaconda are BSD and copyright by donfig are under the MIT license? If so, please add a comment to the spec [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 This is probably because it was compiled against python3.14, and now we have 3.15 in rawhide? [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 3950 bytes in 1 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Builds in copr [-]: 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. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. [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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmp8avoypen')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-donfig.src: E: spelling-error ('programmatically', '%description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally') python3-donfig.noarch: E: spelling-error ('programmatically', '%description -l en_US programmatically -> pro grammatically, pro-grammatically, programmatic ally') python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/config_obj.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_config.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/utils.py 644 /usr/bin/env python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-donfig". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/donfig/donfig-0.8.1.post1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3bef3413a4c1c601b585e8d297256d0c1470ea012afa6e8461dc28bfb7c23f52 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3bef3413a4c1c601b585e8d297256d0c1470ea012afa6e8461dc28bfb7c23f52 Requires -------- python3-donfig (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(pyyaml) Provides -------- python3-donfig: python-donfig python3-donfig python3.14-donfig python3.14dist(donfig) python3dist(donfig) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-donfig --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to david08741 from comment #7) > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > It seems files with copyright by Anaconda are BSD and copyright by donfig > are under the MIT license? > If so, please add a comment to the spec There is no specific split; see the upstream PR linked in the spec. (In reply to david08741 from comment #7) > [!]: There are some shebangs on installed python files, that do not seem to > be meant to be executed (by users): > python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env python > python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/config_obj.py 644 /usr/bin/env > python > python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_config.py 644 > /usr/bin/env python > python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/tests/test_lock.py 644 /usr/bin/env > python > python3-donfig.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/donfig/utils.py 644 /usr/bin/env python They don't belong; fixed. (In reply to david08741 from comment #7) > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- > packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 > This is probably because it was compiled against python3.14, and now we have > 3.15 in rawhide? Maybe? We'll see on the next build. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/2/python-donfig.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/2/python-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc46.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/2/python-donfig.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/2/python-donfig-0.8.1.post1-1.fc46.src.rpm
[fedora-review-service-build]
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #8) > (In reply to david08741 from comment #7) > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > must be documented in the spec. > > It seems files with copyright by Anaconda are BSD and copyright by donfig > > are under the MIT license? > > If so, please add a comment to the spec > > There is no specific split; see the upstream PR linked in the spec. Could you add a comment saying that all files are dual licensed? > (In reply to david08741 from comment #7) > > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- > > packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 > > This is probably because it was compiled against python3.14, and now we have > > 3.15 in rawhide? > > Maybe? We'll see on the next build. > It is flagged again, but it seems fine by me. It depends on python(abi) - which is provided by python3, which should depends on python3-libs, which owns the directory. I do not understand this. So it seems like a bug in fedora-review?