Bug 2417205 - Review Request: python-coards - Parser for COARDS-compliant dates
Summary: Review Request: python-coards - Parser for COARDS-compliant dates
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://pypi.org/project/coards/
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2417208
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-11-26 03:34 UTC by Elliott Sales de Andrade
Modified: 2025-12-01 08:00 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Elliott Sales de Andrade 2025-11-26 03:34:17 UTC
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-coards/python-coards.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-coards/python-coards-1.0.5-1.fc44.src.rpm

Description:
This module is intended to help parse time values represented using the COARDS
convention.

Fedora Account System Username: qulogic

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-26 03:37:27 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9838549
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417205-python-coards/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09838549-python-coards/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.

Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2025-12-01 08:00:09 UTC
It looks like this is missing the license text for the stated MIT license, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text, which is required. Ideally the text might be present in the upstream VCS (but that has gone away), or you might be able to get upstream to add a license file (but it looks like this project is unmaintained upstream). You might still have some success in contacting the upstream author to confirm the intended license text. If this fails, the guidelines linked above allow you to make a careful educated guess at the intended text.

I would also mention that you don’t need to pass the module/package name to %pyproject_check_import; it uses a modules list recorded by %pyproject_save_files.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.