Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-beangulp/python-beangulp.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-beangulp/python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: beangulp provides a framework for importing transactions into a Beancount ledger from account statements and other documents and for managing documents. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8746861 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2351111-python-beangulp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08746861-python-beangulp/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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 comment was flagged as spam, view the edit history to see the original text if required.
The package is APPROVED as-is, although I hope you will take a little time to read through the "Notes" below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Notes ===== I submitted a PR to fix installing "examples" and "tools" in site-packages in future releases, https://github.com/beancount/beangulp/pull/169. Manually removing them in %install is fine for now. --- Regarding the following rpmlint messages, python3-beangulp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp-0.2.0.dist-info/METADATA python3-beangulp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp-0.2.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE I opened https://github.com/beancount/beangulp/pull/168 to update the license text upstream. This should *not* be patched downstream, at least not until/unless upstream merges the PR, but the updated text will hopefully appear in the next upstream release. ---- Regarding the following rpmlint message, python3-beangulp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp/file_type_testdata/example.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 the /usr/bin/env shebang line would be prohibited by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs if the script were installed with executable permissions. As it is, I suppose this is technically OK, but consider just removing the shebang in %prep: # Installed without executable permissions, so the shebang is useless # (and contains prohibited /usr/bin/env anyway): sed -r -i '1{/^#!/d}' beangulp/file_type_testdata/example.py ---- I’ve come to like the idea of running %pyproject_check_import unconditionally, rather than only when tests are disabled: it is nearly “free,” and I have encountered cases where test coverage is incomplete and there are still importability issues. This isn’t required by any means, though. ===== 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: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2351111-python-beangulp/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages Diagnostic is spurious; python3-libs owns these. [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. [x]: 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 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 866 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: [-]: 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. (Tests pass.) [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. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132972300 [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmptuspn2my')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-beangulp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp/file_type_testdata/example.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 python3-beangulp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp-0.2.0.dist-info/METADATA python3-beangulp.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/beangulp-0.2.0.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-beangulp". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/beancount/beangulp/archive/v0.2.0/beangulp-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 35b67d5ab09b19b4839cb630ab64dd26b725329d936f9ba80149673c89d34583 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 35b67d5ab09b19b4839cb630ab64dd26b725329d936f9ba80149673c89d34583 Requires -------- python3-beangulp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(beancount) python3.13dist(beautifulsoup4) python3.13dist(chardet) python3.13dist(click) python3.13dist(lxml) python3.13dist(python-magic) Provides -------- python3-beangulp: python-beangulp python3-beangulp python3.13-beangulp python3.13dist(beangulp) python3dist(beangulp) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2351111 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Java, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-beangulp
FEDORA-2025-a4bd86ebed (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a4bd86ebed
FEDORA-2025-a4bd86ebed (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6 (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6
FEDORA-2025-052ca08d92 (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-052ca08d92
FEDORA-2025-052ca08d92 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-2025-052ca08d92 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-052ca08d92 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-2a536fa3c6 (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-052ca08d92 (python-beangulp-0.2.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.