spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-bluebell-akn.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc41.src.rpm description: Bluebell is a (fairly) generic Akoma Ntoso 3 parser, supporting all hierarchical elements and multiple document types. Bluebell supports the following Akoma Ntoso (AKN) document types: act, bill (hierarchicalStructure) debateReport, doc, statement (openStructure) judgment (judgmentStructure) Bluebell tries to walk the line between being expressive and supporting a range of AKN documents and structures, while being simple to use and not requiring that authors have an in-depth knowledge of AKN. Bluebell will always produce structurally valid Akoma Ntoso, no matter what input is given. It will never refuse to parse malformed input. If it does, it's a bug. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review/review-python-bluebell-akn/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [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 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 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: [x]: 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. [?]: 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-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.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/tmptrxj1qg2')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-bluebell-akn.src: E: spelling-error ('hierarchicalStructure', '%description -l en_US hierarchicalStructure -> hierarchical Structure, hierarchical-structure') python-bluebell-akn.src: E: spelling-error ('debateReport', '%description -l en_US debateReport -> debate Report, debate-report, preponderate') python-bluebell-akn.src: E: spelling-error ('openStructure', '%description -l en_US openStructure -> open Structure, open-structure, superstructure') python-bluebell-akn.src: E: spelling-error ('judgmentStructure', '%description -l en_US judgmentStructure -> judgment Structure, judgment-structure, superstructure') python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('hierarchicalStructure', '%description -l en_US hierarchicalStructure -> hierarchical Structure, hierarchical-structure') python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('debateReport', '%description -l en_US debateReport -> debate Report, debate-report, preponderate') python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('openStructure', '%description -l en_US openStructure -> open Structure, open-structure, superstructure') python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: E: spelling-error ('judgmentStructure', '%description -l en_US judgmentStructure -> judgment Structure, judgment-structure, superstructure') python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bluebell python3-bluebell-akn.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/bluebell_akn/bluebell_akn-3.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9635050a311f8effeb46888e573aa4871eb54aa24d7f700bf087620c1fb4525a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9635050a311f8effeb46888e573aa4871eb54aa24d7f700bf087620c1fb4525a Requires -------- python3-bluebell-akn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(cobalt) python3.14dist(lxml) Provides -------- python3-bluebell-akn: python-bluebell-akn python3-bluebell-akn python3.14-bluebell-akn python3.14dist(bluebell-akn) python3dist(bluebell-akn) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name python-bluebell-akn -m local-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Please, remove useless comments from .spec file: # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora # Add top-level Python module names here as arguments, you can use globs Why README.md is not packaged as %doc ? It's content is present in METADATA file, but I think this file can be useful for users, so why it's not packaged?
> Please, remove useless comments from .spec file: > # Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora > # Add top-level Python module names here as arguments, you can use globs done > Why README.md is not packaged as %doc ? It's content is present in METADATA file, but I think this file can be useful for users, so why it's not packaged? Added %doc README.md spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-bluebell-akn.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
Looks good, APPROVED.
Thanks.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bluebell-akn
FEDORA-2025-a50549b4f1 (python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc42 and python-cobalt-9.0.1-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a50549b4f1
FEDORA-2025-e48df4276b (python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc41 and python-cobalt-9.0.1-2.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e48df4276b
https://release-monitoring.org/project/378766/
FEDORA-2025-a50549b4f1 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-a50549b4f1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-a50549b4f1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-e48df4276b 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-e48df4276b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-e48df4276b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-a50549b4f1 (python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc42 and python-cobalt-9.0.1-3.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-e48df4276b (python-bluebell-akn-3.1.1-1.fc41 and python-cobalt-9.0.1-2.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.