Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: python-uncertainties.spec Fedora Account System Username: topazus
koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140221254
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9938872 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2424162-python-uncertainties/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09938872-python-uncertainties/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.
Switch to use RPM pyproject declarative buildsystem. Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc44.src.rpm koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140223124
[fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2120213 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9938872 to 9953371
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9953371 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2424162-python-uncertainties/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09953371-python-uncertainties/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 Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-uncertainties/2424162-python- uncertainties/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.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/tmpz9qnvbn8')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-uncertainties.src: E: spelling-error ('uncertaintes', '%description -l en_US uncertaintes -> uncertainties, uncertainty') python3-uncertainties.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uncertaintes', '%description -l en_US uncertaintes -> uncertainties, uncertainty') python3-uncertainties.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.6 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-uncertainties.noarch: E: spelling-error ('uncertaintes', '%description -l en_US uncertaintes -> uncertainties, uncertainty') python3-uncertainties.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lmfit/uncertainties/archive/3.2.3/uncertainties-3.2.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3900c0e9b8440e3187058ee051c7137b4af3c0f1c3315d2de621aedb3753fd44 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3900c0e9b8440e3187058ee051c7137b4af3c0f1c3315d2de621aedb3753fd44 Requires -------- python3-uncertainties (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-uncertainties: python-uncertainties python3-uncertainties python3.14-uncertainties python3.14dist(uncertainties) python3dist(uncertainties) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2424162 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, R, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider packaging the documentation, for an example see: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/blob/rawhide/f/python-androguard.spec b) To ensure all directories are owned, please add: Requires: python3-libs c) Please fix the spelling error by changing %description The uncertainties package allows calculations with values that have uncertaintes, to %description The uncertainties package allows calculations with values that have uncertainties,
Thanks for reviewing. > a) Consider packaging the documentation, for an example see: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/blob/rawhide/f/python-androguard.spec Added doc. > b) To ensure all directories are owned, please add: > Requires: python3-libs I think it does not need to add this, see aother reviewer's comment about this, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2418755#c2 > c) Please fix the spelling error by changing Fixed spelling. --- Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties.spec SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc44.src.rpm
Created attachment 2120277 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9953371 to 9954301
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9954301 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2424162-python-uncertainties/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09954301-python-uncertainties/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.
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #8) > Thanks for reviewing. > > > a) Consider packaging the documentation, for an example see: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-androguard/blob/rawhide/f/python-androguard.spec > > Added doc. Thanks. > > > b) To ensure all directories are owned, please add: > > Requires: python3-libs > > I think it does not need to add this, see aother reviewer's comment about > this, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2418755#c2 $ dnf repoquery whatowns /usr/lib/python3.14 Updating and loading repositories: Fedora 43 - x86_64 100% | 1.4 MiB/s | 58.5 MiB | 00m42s Fedora 43 - x86_64 - Updates 100% | 560.7 KiB/s | 22.5 MiB | 00m41s Repositories loaded. python3-libs-0:3.14.0-1.fc43.i686 python3-libs-0:3.14.0-1.fc43.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.14.2-1.fc43.i686 python3-libs-0:3.14.2-1.fc43.x86_64 $ dnf repoquery whatowns /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages Updating and loading repositories: Repositories loaded. python3-bluechi-0:1.1.0-3.fc43.noarch python3-bluechi-0:1.2.1-1.fc43.noarch python3-libs-0:3.14.0-1.fc43.i686 python3-libs-0:3.14.0-1.fc43.x86_64 python3-libs-0:3.14.2-1.fc43.i686 python3-libs-0:3.14.2-1.fc43.x86_64 Assume python(abi) is python3-libs - the runtime libraries https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.14/blob/rawhide/f/python3.14.spec#_533 Not sure if it is a bug in the review tool, or packaging. There is a bug reported for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264345 Not a blocker, but possibly helpful to add with a link to the ticket. > > > c) Please fix the spelling error by changing > > Fixed spelling. Thanks. > > --- > > Spec URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties.spec > SRPM URL: > https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Approved. Can you make me co-maintainer of: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/groonga https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qxmpp https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kaidan would like to update them to latest releases.
Thanks for the review work. I have added you as the admin of the three packages.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-uncertainties
FEDORA-2025-64fb40527e (python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-64fb40527e
FEDORA-2025-64fb40527e (python-uncertainties-3.2.3-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.