Note that this package includes vendored javascript, there's an elaborate comment in the spec file on the why/how. Upstream does the following things with javascript: https://github.com/9001/copyparty/blob/hovudstraum/scripts/deps-docker/Dockerfile#L25-L172 many of these are not packaged in Fedora and while the original files (pre-patch) could probably be included in the release tarball and then patched inside the RPM to me this feels like a large extra burden to keep that in sync with upstream.

Separately, I left out any user setup and/or service files in this initial package. I thought it over a bit and didn't really have a good idea on how to set this up in a way that would satisfy all users. If there's input on this I'd be happy to hear. Right now the idea is that users can install the package and run `copyparty` directly in a directly they want to share, potentially adding a service file themselves.

Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are:

- You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description
  or any of your comments
- The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS
- The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified
  in the ticket summary


---
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.

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #2)
> Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket.

If you’re going to host your spec and SRPM on GitHub, please provide the “raw” SRPM link rather than linking to the web UI. The following should work:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-copyparty/99172a420ab76b29f87eafbf89b276690ec153bd/copyparty.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/supakeen/fedora-copyparty/raw/99172a420ab76b29f87eafbf89b276690ec153bd/copyparty-1.19.16-5.fc44.src.rpm

Thanks Ben, my bad; I did use the `raw` URL for the spec file but copy/pasted the wrong one for the SRPM. Is your comment enough for `fedora-review-service` to retrigger?

(In reply to Simon de Vlieger from comment #4)
> Thanks Ben, my bad; I did use the `raw` URL for the spec file but
> copy/pasted the wrong one for the SRPM. Is your comment enough for
> `fedora-review-service` to retrigger?

It should have been, but I don’t see any evidence of it yet. Just in case:

[fedora-review-service-build]

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #5)
> It should have been, but I don’t see any evidence of it yet. Just in case:

Since there were some outages yesterday that might've affected things let's try once more:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-copyparty/99172a420ab76b29f87eafbf89b276690ec153bd/copyparty.spec
SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-copyparty/99172a420ab76b29f87eafbf89b276690ec153bd/copyparty-1.19.16-5.fc44.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9709472
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2405006-copyparty/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09709472-copyparty/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file COPYING.txt is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

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.

Since I devendored upstream I need `python-dnslib` available; I've filed an unretirement request and the related BZ for re-review is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2406787

Few notable things:

* two trivial lint issues

copyparty-u2c.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized upload2copyparty client application.
copyparty-u2c.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot upload2copyparty client application.

* - copyparty.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/copyparty/web/a/partyfuse.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
* - copyparty.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/copyparty/web/a/partyfuse.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3
* - copyparty.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/copyparty/web/a/u2c.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3

prisonparty seems to be missing or is that intentional? 

upstream issues:

* [ ] /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py:759: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: License classifiers are 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).
* [ ] no man page, could be reported upstream (./scripts/help2txt.sh exists already)

The initial package lacks systemd support, so that makes deploying copyparty for a bit harder. I am not sure how useful a "copyparty" user is and a "copyparty.service" but I can see something like copyparty@.service enabling it for a dedicated user. However the standard WorkingDirectory seems a bit weird being /var/lib/copyparty-jail.