Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-holidays/python-holidays.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-holidays/python-holidays-0.79-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: A fast, efficient Python library for generating country, province and state specific sets of holidays on the fly. It aims to make determining whether a specific date is a holiday as fast and flexible as possible. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136328622
Note: this is a re-review to unretire https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9456649 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390276-python-holidays/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09456649-python-holidays/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.
COPR build error is: fatal: unable to access 'https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/git/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390276-python-holidays/python-holidays/': SSL certificate problem: certificate has expired So, it's not related to the package.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9456787 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390276-python-holidays/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09456787-python-holidays/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Hi Benson, Anything I can do here to help move this one along? Should be a quick review. Cheers,
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]". 880 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python- holidays/2390276-python-holidays/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. [ ]: 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 134338 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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. [!]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-holidays-0.79-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-holidays-0.79-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmzgbwrvg')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vacanza/holidays/archive/v0.79/holidays-0.79.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc7f7fa0e60a5141adf180276993da1562ccd86ff3e6517d984328fb3e38ced1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc7f7fa0e60a5141adf180276993da1562ccd86ff3e6517d984328fb3e38ced1 Requires -------- python3-holidays (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(python-dateutil) Provides -------- python3-holidays: python-holidays python3-holidays python3.14-holidays python3.14dist(holidays) python3dist(holidays) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-holidays/2390276-python-holidays/srpm/python-holidays.spec 2025-08-22 12:56:02.655412787 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-holidays/2390276-python-holidays/srpm-unpacked/python-holidays.spec 2025-08-22 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-holidays Version: 0.79 @@ -28,6 +38,4 @@ # remove coverage options from pytest sed -i '/--cov-fail-under=100/ d' pyproject.toml -# remove license-files: fails on F42 -sed -i '/^license-files/ d' pyproject.toml cat pyproject.toml @@ -66,3 +74,52 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Fri Aug 22 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.79-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Fri Aug 22 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.10.4-4 +- Revert "Orphaned for 6+ weeks" + +* Fri Jun 04 2021 Python Maint <python-maint> - 0.10.4-3 +- Rebuilt for Python 3.10 + +* Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.4-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sun Dec 06 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.4-1 +- * Sun Dec 06 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.4-1 - + Update to latest upstream releas 0.10.3 (#1904781) + +* Sat Aug 01 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.3-3 +- Second attempt - Rebuilt for + https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Jul 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.3-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Jul 15 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.3-1 +- * Thu Jul 16 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.3-1 - + Update to latest upstream release 0.10.3 (rhbz#1857281) + +* Tue Jun 23 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.2-2 +- Update BR + +* Tue Jun 23 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.2-1 +- * Tue Jun 23 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.2-1 - + Update to latest upstream release 0.10.2 (rhbz#1823316) + +* Tue May 26 2020 Miro Hrončok <miro> - 0.10.1-6 +- Rebuilt for Python 3.9 + +* Sun Feb 02 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.1-5 +- Fix typo + +* Sun Feb 02 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.1-4 +- Add new BR + +* Sat Feb 01 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.1-3 +- Update files section + +* Sat Feb 01 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.1-2 +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390276 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, Java, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) license file does not need extra marking for rawhide and f43: $ rpm -qL python3-holidays-0.79-1.fc44.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/holidays-0.79.dist-info/licenses/CONTRIBUTORS /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/holidays-0.79.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-holidays/LICENSE if needed for f42 and f41 make it for these only. b) If the spec file is changed from ... %build %pyproject_wheel %install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l holidays %check %pyproject_check_import %{python3} scripts/l10n/generate_mo_files.py %pytest -v . ... to ... %build %{python3} scripts/l10n/generate_mo_files.py %pyproject_wheel %install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l holidays %check %pyproject_check_import %pytest -v . ... the translation files get packaged. Probably it is useful to have these. However, they are in the python directories, not in standard locale directories. %find_lang macro is therefore not used. Not sure if this will cause problems, or if a Fedora specific patch should be used. c) 0.80 has been released. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136748089 please update
Hi Benson, Thanks for the review, and apologies for the delay. The upstream tests etc. seem to require the locale files to be in a locale folder relative to the python package, so I've left them in there for the moment: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adr-prodigy%2Fpython-holidays+locale+language%3APython&type=code&l=Python Updated spec/srpm: Spec: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-holidays/python-holidays.spec SRPM: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-holidays/python-holidays-0.80-1.fc44.src.rpm Cheers, Ankur
Created attachment 2111256 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9456787 to 9743524
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9743524 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2390276-python-holidays/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09743524-python-holidays/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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.
Hi Benson, Could you please take a look at this one when you have a minute to see if it's good to go? Cheers, Ankur
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License [generated file]". 889 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-holidays/2390276-python- holidays/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 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. [-]: 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 137536 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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. [!]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-holidays-0.80-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-holidays-0.80-1.fc44.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/tmp29b2qro6')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.6 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/vacanza/holidays/archive/v0.80/holidays-0.80.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : daff527c1824c26f7442a9e7ac0b1049b9c85e1e72ab322a175c85ef7c4bc1ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : daff527c1824c26f7442a9e7ac0b1049b9c85e1e72ab322a175c85ef7c4bc1ad Requires -------- python3-holidays (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(python-dateutil) Provides -------- python3-holidays: python-holidays python3-holidays python3.14-holidays python3.14dist(holidays) python3dist(holidays) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-holidays/2390276-python-holidays/srpm/python-holidays.spec 2026-02-01 13:41:05.380347716 +0300 +++ /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-holidays/2390276-python-holidays/srpm-unpacked/python-holidays.spec 2025-10-29 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + Name: python-holidays Version: 0.80 @@ -72,3 +82,47 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Wed Oct 29 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.80-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Fri Aug 22 2025 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 0.79-2 +- fix(f42): tweak license in pyproject + +* Fri Jun 04 2021 Python Maint <python-maint> - 0.10.4-3 +- Rebuilt for Python 3.10 + +* Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.4-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild + +* Sun Dec 06 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.4-1 +- Update to latest upstream releas 0.10.3 (#1904781) + +* Sat Aug 01 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.3-3 +- Second attempt - Rebuilt for + https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Wed Jul 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.10.3-2 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild + +* Thu Jul 16 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.3-1 +- Update to latest upstream release 0.10.3 (#1857281) + +* Tue Jun 23 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.2-1 +- Update to latest upstream release 0.10.2 (#1823316) + +* Tue May 26 2020 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> - 0.10.1-2 +- Rebuilt for Python 3.9 + +* Sat Feb 01 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.10.1-1 +- Update to latest upstream release 0.10.1 + +* Thu Jan 30 2020 Fedora Release Engineering <releng> - 0.9.12-3 +- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild + +* Tue Jan 07 2020 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.9.12-2 +- Better use of wildcards (rhbz#1786940) + +* Sun Dec 29 2019 Fabian Affolter <mail> - 0.9.12-1 +- Initial package for Fedora + +## END: Generated by rpmautospec Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2390276 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Coomments: a) Please update to 0.89 the current release b) Consider making a documentation sub package. c) Approved. Please fix (a) before import.
Thanks very much. Unretirement request is here: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13198
FEDORA-2026-a2547ed59e (python-holidays-0.90-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-a2547ed59e
FEDORA-2026-a2547ed59e (python-holidays-0.90-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.