Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/a5c5cb21f2fac223247e27026c463640d95cbe1c/python-dnslib.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/raw/a5c5cb21f2fac223247e27026c463640d95cbe1c/python-dnslib-0.9.26-0.fc44.src.rpm Description: Simple library to encode/decode DNS wire-format packets. Fedora Account System Username: supakeen --- Note that this is a review for unretirement. I've taken the previous spec file and updated it to use pyproject macros and to the latest upstream release.
* No unit tests are being run while possible via `PYTHONPATH=. dnslib/test_decode.py`, they re-use the unittest runner or simply `VERSIONS=python ./run_tests.sh` * Running the upstream license through https://tools.spdx.org/apps/check_license seems to suggest this is BSD-2-Clause (Callaway-BSD is not a valid SPDX license https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/ )
Minor correction VERSIONS=python3 ./run_tests.sh
Thanks! Nice find with the tests, I've updated the spec file with the (short) license tag for BSD-2-Clause and %check to run the tests. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/e42ca1ff544e822677fedfab70f4b67c9d6c2fa2/python-dnslib.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/raw/e42ca1ff544e822677fedfab70f4b67c9d6c2fa2/python-dnslib-0.9.26-0.fc44.src.rpm [fedora-review-service-build]
> BuildRequires: python3-devel Move this to top level package, below BuildArch line. > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} Remove this legacy line > %license LICENSE Likely not needed, part of %{pyproject_files} ? > Release: 0%{?dist} > * Tue Oct 28 2025 Simon de Vlieger <cmdr> - 0.9.26-0 Release should be 1 for initial build of a new version
Thanks Terje! I've applied your suggestions and moved the BuildRequires, dropped the legacy, and dropped %license (it does seem like that's handled by pyproject_files and the -l argument enforces that a LICENSE is present); it seems rpmlint agrees with the specfile and srpm. I've also changed the release to 1. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/c2e80c4ab04c59393fec2991660c6ee2dde888f7/python-dnslib.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/raw/c2e80c4ab04c59393fec2991660c6ee2dde888f7/python-dnslib-0.9.26-1.fc44.src.rpm
I got mismatch in upstream tarball, is tarball downloaded from pypi and not from github? Please use the latter.
Apologies, I wonder why rpmlint didn't tell me that. I've used spectool -g to download the appropriate tarball and updated the srpm: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/4c40ae876626524aae4737c18eda321c22e923ca/python-dnslib.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/supakeen/fedora-python-dnslib/raw/4c40ae876626524aae4737c18eda321c22e923ca/python-dnslib-0.9.26-1.fc44.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9740275 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406787-python-dnslib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09740275-python-dnslib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dnslib Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-dnslib/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9740272 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406787-python-dnslib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09740272-python-dnslib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dnslib 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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9740271 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406787-python-dnslib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09740271-python-dnslib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Not a valid SPDX expression 'LicenseRef-Callaway-BSD'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dnslib Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-dnslib/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Created attachment 2111164 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9740274 to 9740275
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9740274 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406787-python-dnslib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09740274-python-dnslib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dnslib Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-dnslib/diff.txt Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ 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.
Mmm, that was a lot of sudden fedora reviews coming in; and it seems they came in out of order. I guess comment #9 is the most recent one but I'll retrigger just to be sure. [fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9740335 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2406787-python-dnslib/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09740335-python-dnslib/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dnslib 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.
Thanks, changes looks good to me.
Thanks Terje! For Jelle: do you see anything else, I think you're the one that can set fedora-review to + if you find this to be in order now since the issue is assigned to you :)
Package APPROVED, don't forget to follow the package unretirement process https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming Small nitpick removing the egg-info should no longer be needed as you pull sources from GitHub now. `rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info` 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-dnslib See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== 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 2-Clause License". 94 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-dnslib/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19364 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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). [x]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-dnslib-0.9.26-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-dnslib-0.9.26-1.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/tmpzi7lrenc')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-dnslib". 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 Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/paulc/dnslib/archive/0.9.26/dnslib-0.9.26.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0400ffdc0e3ff51ac69131511f7df04437bb4f36eb96ec6d69b33fd4b9f2443e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0400ffdc0e3ff51ac69131511f7df04437bb4f36eb96ec6d69b33fd4b9f2443e Requires -------- python3-dnslib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-dnslib: python-dnslib python3-dnslib python3.14-dnslib python3.14dist(dnslib) python3dist(dnslib) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-dnslib --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: R, PHP, Perl, C/C++, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH