Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08862990-getmail6/getmail6.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08862990-getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A mail retrieval, sorting, and delivering system Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8862997 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2357605-getmail6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08862997-getmail6/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file COPYING is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 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.
Nice! Fixed in: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08863010-getmail6/getmail6.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08863010-getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A mail retrieval, sorting, and delivering system Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/getmail/2357605- getmail6/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07 [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 520871 bytes in 15 files. [ ]: 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 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]: 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. [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. [ ]: %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: getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.noarch.rpm getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpvl5sgv4p')] checks: 32, packages: 2 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 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 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_maildir getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_mbox getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07/COPYING getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a Requires -------- getmail6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh python(abi) Provides -------- getmail6: getmail6 python3.13dist(getmail6) python3dist(getmail6) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2357605 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) May need to add %dir /usr/share/doc/getmail-6.19.07 to the files section. Perhaps /usr/share/doc/getmail could be used instead and a pull request sent upstream with the appropriate patch? Other unonwed directories are a bug in fedora-review. Unclear if this is to, or if something needs to be modified in Python packaging or Fedora-review. b) https://github.com/getmail6/getmail6/blob/master/getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens is under Apache 2 so this license should be added to the spec file
Thanks for your review, I think I fixed your comments, also upstreamed my fixed which have been merged but haven't been released. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08892552-getmail6/getmail6.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08892552-getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A mail retrieval, sorting, and delivering system Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
Created attachment 2084479 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8863025 to 8892556
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8892556 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2357605-getmail6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08892556-getmail6/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 package replaces https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/getmail (which has been removed since the retirement of Python 2). Does is make sense to rename this package from getmail6 to getmail?
FEDORA-2025-3ea2c4448d (getmail-6.19.7-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3ea2c4448d
This is different software from getmail, so should not be uploaded before completing review.
Oh, I'm sorry did I proceed too fast? Please let me know what I should do. I'm pretty sure getmail 5 got replaced by getmail 6 (at least on PyPI).
File a ticket with releng to remove the files https://pagure.io/releng/issues Will finish review later today. Arch and Debian both use getmail6 https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/getmail6 https://packages.debian.org/sid/getmail6 so that seems a reasonable name.
Allright, thanks! This is the releng ticket: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12693 Please note that: https://pypi.org/project/getmail/ and https://pypi.org/project/getmail6/ are the same package. Getmail 5 seems to be abandoned (with Python 2.7 support only) https://pyropus.ca./software/getmail/old-versions/
FEDORA-2025-3ea2c4448d (getmail-6.19.7-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
Kevin Fenzi (from releng) asked whether is also is fine to retire getmail again?
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 2", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/getmail6/2357605-getmail6/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/getmail [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/share/doc/getmail, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 520871 bytes in 15 files. [ ]: 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 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]: 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. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [ ]: %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: getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.noarch.rpm getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmpt8uk8y21')] checks: 32, packages: 2 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 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 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_maildir getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_mbox getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/getmail/COPYING getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a Requires -------- getmail6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh python(abi) Provides -------- getmail6: getmail6 python3.13dist(getmail6) python3dist(getmail6) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2357605 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Haskell, Java, Perl, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) In the patch would change +DOCDIR = os.path.join('share','doc','getmail') to +DOCDIR = os.path.join('share','doc','getmail6') because the pypi name for getmail provides getmail6 and getmailcore. Typically doc package does not have version information, in this case the package name is getmail6. Sorry should have been clearer about this. b) install locations from pypi should be unique, so perhaps check with upstream if they expect to migrate to getmail as the primary namespace. c) Please ensure the doc directory is owned, may need to check generated metadata from python packaging is correct. May need to add %dir /usr/share/doc/getmail6 to the spec file. Consider making the docs a subpackage, they are not too large to necessitate this though, so it is upto you if you want to split it out. d) Let upstream know about the incorrect FSF address, and suggest update that part of the license to what is on the FSF website. e) Yes, would suggest retiring and creating a new repo for getmail6. Permissions for getmail seemed to indicate just orphaned, not retired. f) Duplicate licence files are fine since one does nothave metadata.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08920568-getmail6/getmail6.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/getmail6/fedora-42-x86_64/08920568-getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: A mail retrieval, sorting, and delivering system Fedora Account System Username: meeuw a) I patched the patch (it has already been merged upstream as getmail and I think that's fine) b) I'm fine with both c) Good point, fixed! d) https://github.com/getmail6/getmail6/pull/234 e) Churdyard proposed to retire the package again: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12693, do you agree? f) All right! Thanks for you help, I'm not so experienced with the packaging processes yet, please let me know what should be done to get this done!
Created attachment 2085817 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8892556 to 8921829
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8921829 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2357605-getmail6/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08921829-getmail6/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.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 2", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/getmail/2357605-getmail6/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 520871 bytes in 15 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 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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [ ]: %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: getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.noarch.rpm getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 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/tmp_6uh4om5')] checks: 32, packages: 2 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail6/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 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 getmail6.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary getmail-gmail-xoauth-tokens getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_maildir getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/getmail_mbox getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/getmail6/COPYING getmail6.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING getmail6.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/getmail6/COPYING /usr/share/doc/getmail6/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 4 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/getmail6/getmail6-6.19.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a8c3d53ec2ac3d1780f2be1922ce0817feda954f105c4960f50ba6ffd3699d8a Requires -------- getmail6 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh python(abi) Provides -------- getmail6: getmail6 python3.13dist(getmail6) python3dist(getmail6) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2357605 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for making a pull request to fix FSF address: https://github.com/getmail6/getmail6/pull/234 b) Upstream has a number of tests: https://github.com/getmail6/getmail6/tree/master/test They use Docker, so cannot be packaged directly, but possibly the dependencies could be installed directly: - git (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/git/) - iputils (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/iputils/) - make (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/make/) - nmap (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/nmap) may want to switch to something else due to license change - procmail (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/procmail) Then the test procedure update. As the above may take time, may want to at least run smoke test such as getmail --version Not blocking though, just a suggestion. c) Licensing breakdown is no longer required, but indicating what is under Apache-2.0 license maybe helpful, in particular as only one file is under Apache-2.0 while the rest of the project is GPL-2.0-only d) Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/getmail6
FEDORA-2025-1645189bde (getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1645189bde
FEDORA-2025-1645189bde (getmail6-6.19.7-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.