Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/dogukancagatay/pysubnettree/pysubnettree.git/plain/pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/pysubnettree/srpm-builds/09700751/pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Python Module for CIDR Lookups Fedora Account System Username: dogukancagatay Review is requested due to orphaned package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pysubnettree Changes update the pysubnettree package from version 0.35 to 0.38.1, fix and modernize the RPM packaging to follow current Fedora packaging guidelines. Changes include: - Version bump from 0.35 to 0.38.1 - Replace distutils/setuptools with pyproject macros - Improve packaging standards, use %autorelease - Update license from LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD to the correct one BSD-3-Clause-LBNL - Add proper subpackage (python3-pysubnettree) following naming guidelines - Add running tests against built package.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9704183 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09704183-pysubnettree/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pysubnettree 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.
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/pysubnettree See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "BSD 4-Clause License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/pysubnettree/2404999- pysubnettree/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/python3.14/site- packages/pysubnettree-0.38.1.dist-info [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site- packages/pysubnettree-0.38.1.dist-info, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib64/python3.14 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 16164 bytes in 2 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 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. [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.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/tmphfmik32a')] checks: 32, packages: 2 pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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 0.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pysubnettree: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/_SubnetTree.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeek/pysubnettree/archive/v0.38.1/pysubnettree-0.38.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 Requires -------- python3-pysubnettree (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pysubnettree: python-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree(x86-64) python3.14-pysubnettree Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2404999 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, PHP, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) One file seems to be under BSD-4-Clause https://github.com/zeek/pysubnettree/blob/master/include/patricia.h pysubnettree-0.38.1-build/pysubnettree-0.38.1/include/patricia.h b) Please update last part of spec file to use current macros %install %pyproject_install %pyproject_save_files -l SubnetTree %check %pyproject_check_import cd testing cp %{SOURCE1} btest.cfg PYTHONPATH="%{buildroot}%{python3_sitearch}:$PWD/Scripts" btest -c btest.cfg -d %files -n python3-pysubnettree -f %{pyproject_files} %doc CHANGES README %license COPYING %{python3_sitearch}/_SubnetTree.cpython*.so c) Am unsure about unowned directory /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/__pycache__ d) Build warnings (not blocking the review): /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/setuptools/config/_apply_pyprojecttoml.py:82: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: `project.license` as a TOML table is deprecated !! ******************************************************************************** Please use a simple string containing a SPDX expression for `project.license`. You can also use `project.license-files`. ( Both options available on setuptools>=77.0.0). By 2026-Feb-18, you need to update your project and remove deprecated calls or your builds will no longer be supported. See https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#license for details. ******************************************************************************** !! corresp(dist, value, root_dir) /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/setuptools/config/_apply_pyprojecttoml.py:61: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: License classifiers are deprecated. !! ******************************************************************************** Please consider removing the following classifiers in favor of a SPDX license expression: License :: OSI Approved :: BSD License See https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/#license for details. ******************************************************************************** !! SubnetTree_wrap.cc:5606:22: warning: ‘__strncpy_chk’ output truncated before terminating nul copying 10 bytes from a string of the same length [-Wstringop-truncation] 5606 | strncpy(buff, "swig_ptr: ", 10); | ^
This is a Python library package, so it needs to follow https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming: the source package needs to be named python-pysubnettree, not just pysubnettree. This is a “MUST” guideline. I know that there are a number of Python library packages that don’t follow this because they predate the guideline, like numpy, but if you’re unretiring a package, you need to bring it up to current standards for a new package.
About renaming the package, should I add a backwards reference like "Provides" or an alias for the `pysubnettree` package? Are we going to use the same repository of the orphaned package or rename it from `pysubnettree` to `python3-pysubnettree` or create a new repository? I will address the missing license and other issues you've raised.
A new repository will be created once the review is complete. It should be called python-pysubnettree. You can add a Provides pysubnettree The spec file should be called python-pysubnettree.spec
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > You can add a Provides pysubnettree Yes, adding appropriate Provides and Obsoletes (combined with the fact that this submission has a higher version number resulting in a higher NVR) will ensure that the "pysubnettree" RPM is upgraded to "python3-pyseubnettree". References: Package renaming process: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ Provides/Obsoletes for renaming: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages Old spec file for pysubnettree: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pysubnettree/blob/e62e3399251af1c37b62306b634247e269b9ccbe/f/pysubnettree.spec
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #6) > ensure that the "pysubnettree" RPM is upgraded to "python3-pyseubnettree". … "python3-pysubnettree".
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/pysubnettree.git/plain/python-pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/srpm-builds/09717813/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc42.src.rpm - Added `BSD-4-Clause` to the licenses list (addressing a). - Updated the old `%py3_check_import` macro with proper modern replacement. (addressing b). - Renamed package to `python-pysubnettree` (and `python3-pysubnettree`). - Renamed the review request title. - Added `Obsoletes` and `Provides` to support proper replacement from the old package. I noted the `SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning` issues to resolve later in the upstream. The only part I didn't do anything is the comment c: > c) Am unsure about unowned directory > /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/__pycache__ What did you mean by "unowned directory"? @benson_muite
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9717952 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09717952-python-pysubnettree/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.
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree.git/plain/python-pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/srpm-builds/09717813/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc42.src.rpm Corrected the spec file URL.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9717962 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09717962-python-pysubnettree/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.
The following is not a full review, just a few notes from skimming the latest spec file. ---- The purpose of %pyproject_save_files is to record the installed files from the Python wheel. The purpose of "-l" is to assert that at least one license file was properly marked in the .dist-info directory. Therefore, it should be possible to replace %files -n python3-pysubnettree %doc CHANGES README %license COPYING %pycached %{python3_sitearch}/SubnetTree.py %{python3_sitearch}/_SubnetTree.cpython*.so %{python3_sitearch}/pysubnettree-%{version}.dist-info/* with %files -n python3-pysubnettree -f %{pyproject_files} %doc CHANGES README You’ll need to change %pyproject_save_files -l SubnetTree to %pyproject_save_files -l SubnetTree _SubnetTree to cover the top-level extension module. I think this should fix your unowned-files problem. ---- Ideally you would separate %prep %autosetup -n pysubnettree-%{version} %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires into %prep %autosetup -n pysubnettree-%{version} %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires because %generate_buildrequires is a section, just like %prep, and it’s confusing to squash them together. --- This is not right Obsoletes: pysubnettree < 0.35-12 because the last NVR of the old package was 0.35-15, so you need: Obsoletes: pysubnettree < 0.35-16 --- The description is kind of “wasted” on the source package, because people are only likely to see it on the python3-pysubnettree binary package. A common pattern is to define a macro, %global common_description %{expand: The PySubnetTree package provides a Python data structure SubnetTree which maps subnets given in CIDR notation (incl. corresponding IPv6 versions) to Python objects. Lookups are performed by longest-prefix matching.} and then write %description %{common_description} and %description -n python3-pysubnettree %{common_description} so you can have the same description in both places. Sometimes people just call the macro _description rather than common_description; any reasonable name is fine.
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/packages/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree.git/tree/python-pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/srpm-builds/09728367/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc42.src.rpm - Fixed the obsoletes EVR (I took the latest bodhi - Separated the %{generate_buildrequires} section. - I applied the suggested %{pyproject_save_files} changes with changes in the %{files}, but I cannot verify the unowned-files - Defined the %{_description} macro and used it for the descriptions
Created attachment 2110693 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9717962 to 9728789
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9728789 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09728789-python-pysubnettree/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.
*(I took the latest bodhi I took the latest release from bodhi previously, now it is fixed.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09728789-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09728789-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "BSD 4-Clause License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/pysubnettree/2404999-python- pysubnettree/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site- packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib64/python3.14, /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 16164 bytes in 2 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 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. [ ]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.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/tmp6vi9fj6o')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') python-pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.7 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 python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pysubnettree: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/_SubnetTree.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeek/pysubnettree/archive/v0.38.1/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 Requires -------- python3-pysubnettree (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pysubnettree: python-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree(x86-64) python3.14-pysubnettree python3.14dist(pysubnettree) python3dist(pysubnettree) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2404999 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, Haskell, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please add Requires: python3-libs to ensure all directories are owned b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139075428
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10183717-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10183717-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc45.src.rpm - Added `Requires: python3-libs` to fix the all directories are owned.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #18) > Comments: > a) Please add > Requires: python3-libs > to ensure all directories are owned The complaint from fedora-review about unowned site-packages directories is spurious. Python packages require the Python interpreter /usr/bin/python3 and the ABI virtual Provides for the system Python, something like python(abi) = 3.14, which are both satisfied by the "python3" package. That, in turn, depends on python3-libs. This has been a known issue for a long time; see https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/issue/515. Please don’t add unnecessary manual Requires just because fedora-review is buggy.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10184529-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dogukancagatay/python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10184529-python-pysubnettree/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc45.src.rpm - Removed `Requires: python3-libs`
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185511 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185511-python-pysubnettree/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.
Created attachment 2131821 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10185511 to 10185523
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10185523 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2404999-python-pysubnettree/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10185523-python-pysubnettree/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 ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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 4-Clause License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-pysubnettree/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 16164 bytes in 2 files. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.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/tmpr1obxgck')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') python-pysubnettree.src: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('subnets', '%description -l en_US subnets -> subsets, sublets, sub nets') python3-pysubnettree.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Lookups', '%description -l en_US Lookups -> Hookups, Lookup, Lockups') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-pysubnettree". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pysubnettree: /usr/lib64/python3.14/site-packages/_SubnetTree.cpython-314-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/zeek/pysubnettree/archive/v0.38.1/python-pysubnettree-0.38.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad556772f3e06345f1ce503fc118ef5bd54cdd0469a990ea1f2d7cd9946d1fb2 Requires -------- python3-pysubnettree (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) python(abi) python3-libs rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- python3-pysubnettree: python-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree python3-pysubnettree(x86-64) python3.14-pysubnettree python3.14dist(pysubnettree) python3dist(pysubnettree) 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-pysubnettree --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Java, R, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: Thanks. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pysubnettree
FEDORA-2026-0d742f83cf (python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0d742f83cf
FEDORA-2026-0d742f83cf (python-pysubnettree-0.38.1-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.