Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-pulp-glue.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-pulp-glue-deb-0.4.2-1.fc44.src.rpm Description: pulp-glue is a library to ease the programmatic communication with the Pulp3 API. It helps to abstract different resource types with so called contexts and allows to build or even provides complex workflows like chunked upload or waiting on tasks. It is built around an openapi3 parser to provide client side validation of http requests, while accounting for known quirks and incompatibilities between different Pulp server component versions. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10135392 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440151-python-pulp-glue-deb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10135392-python-pulp-glue-deb/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.
This looks good to me. But I cannot access the "review template" (results in 404) and I don't know how to approve this.
Using fedora-review is not required, it's an option for the reviewer. If it's fine for you, you can just set fedora-review to + and we ask for the new repository.
Actually, you should "take" the bug, set fedora-review to "?" and then to "+" once you're happy. Thanks.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: python-pulp-glue.spec should be python-pulp-glue-deb.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages/pulp_glue(python3-pulp-glue) [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/grafuls/fedora-review/2440151-python- pulp-glue/srpm-unpacked/python-pulp-glue.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pulp-glue-deb-0.4.2-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-pulp-glue-deb-0.4.2-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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/tmp7wt065cp')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-pulp-glue-deb.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python3-pulp-glue-deb/README.md python-pulp-glue.spec: W: no-%check-section python-pulp-glue-deb.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 10 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 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-pulp-glue-deb.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/python3-pulp-glue-deb/README.md 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pulp/pulp-cli-deb/archive/0.4.2/pulp-cli-deb-0.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 89cc43c13e29ca3bcb84566ea176d43db9afa5b170c7a95423d1614f04c58c61 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 89cc43c13e29ca3bcb84566ea176d43db9afa5b170c7a95423d1614f04c58c61 Requires -------- python3-pulp-glue-deb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.14dist(pulp-glue) < 0.38~~ with python3.14dist(pulp-glue) >= 0.23.2) python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pulp-glue-deb: python-pulp-glue-deb python3-pulp-glue-deb python3.14-pulp-glue-deb python3.14dist(pulp-glue-deb) python3dist(pulp-glue-deb) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440151 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, Java, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: - %doc points to README.* which is empty - Summary: is defined twice - Source and URL: points at pulp-cli-deb as pulp-glue-deb is a subdirectory of it, Consider using the PyPI tarbal: Source0: pulp-glue-deb-%{version}.tar.gz and URL: https://pypi.org/project/ pulp-glue-deb/ This would affect the %autosetup where you should be able to use `%autosetup -p1 -n pulp-glue-deb-%{version}` instead - The sed commands work but are brittle; consider tomcli for cleaner TOML edits. These patches make the source not reproducible, document why each is needed (e.g., "Fedora Python 3.13 incompatible with <3.12 bound"). - Missing %check section
@mdellweg Sorry I started looking into this before assigning it. Just posted my mock review, you can go ahead with the review.
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-pulp-glue.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-pulp-glue-deb-0.4.3-1.fc44.src.rpm Updated to 0.4.3 which includes the license. Thanks @mdellweg!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pulp-glue-deb