Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-eip712.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-eip712-0.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Message classes for typed structured data hashing and signing in Ethereum Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch-build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139962563
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9904447 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2421948-python-eip712/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09904447-python-eip712/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.
Removed dependency on pytest-cov Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-eip712.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-eip712-0.3.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Koji scratch-build for Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=139974747
Created attachment 2118546 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9904447 to 9906003
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9906003 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2421948-python-eip712/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09906003-python-eip712/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.
I will take this review. Could you review bug 2421025 in exchange?
This package is APPROVED. One extremely small comment: note the rpmlint warning mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. The Patch: line contains a tab, but the other header lines use spaces. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 43 files have unknown license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2270 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-eip712-0.3.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-eip712-0.3.0-1.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/tmph0d5enba')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-eip712.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/e/eip712/eip712-0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 384717b473af75cd83270cbc5374636ad55ee92997ee5952330cdb32cbef93ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 384717b473af75cd83270cbc5374636ad55ee92997ee5952330cdb32cbef93ad Requires -------- python3-eip712 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(eth-account) < 0.14~~ with python3.14dist(eth-account) >= 0.11.3) (python3.14dist(eth-pydantic-types) < 0.3~~ with python3.14dist(eth-pydantic-types) >= 0.2.4) (python3.14dist(eth-utils) < 6~~ with python3.14dist(eth-utils) >= 2.3.1) (python3.14dist(pydantic) < 3~~ with python3.14dist(pydantic) >= 2) python(abi) Provides -------- python3-eip712: python-eip712 python3-eip712 python3.14-eip712 python3.14dist(eip712) python3dist(eip712) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2421948 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, R, Perl, Haskell, PHP, Ruby, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #5) > I will take this review. Could you review bug 2421025 in exchange? Thanks for the review. I'm on it!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-eip712
FEDORA-2025-1b1e0d1b7b (python-eip712-0.3.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1b1e0d1b7b
FEDORA-2025-1b1e0d1b7b has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-1b1e0d1b7b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1b1e0d1b7b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9480b34795 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9480b34795` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9480b34795 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-43657d80bc has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-43657d80bc` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-43657d80bc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-43657d80bc (python-eip712-0.3.3-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.