Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3987-syntax.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Helper functions to parse and validate the syntax of terms defined in RFC 3987 — the IETF standard for Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). 🎯 Purpose: The goal of rfc3987-syntax is to provide a lightweight, permissively licensed Python module for validating that strings conform to the ABNF grammar defined in RFC 3987. These helpers are: ✅ Strictly aligned with the syntax rules of RFC 3987 ✅ Built using a permissive MIT license ✅ Designed for both open source and proprietary use ✅ Powered by Lark, a fast, EBNF-based parser 🧠 Note: This project focuses on syntax validation only. RFC 3987 specifies additional semantic rules (e.g., Unicode normalization, BiDi constraints, percent-encoding requirements) that must be enforced separately. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a compact, straightforward pure-Python package that is a new dependency for the format-nongpl extra of python-jsonschema beginning with version 4.25.0.
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: "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python- rfc3987-syntax/2444060-python-rfc3987-syntax/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 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: 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 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 8120 bytes in 2 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. [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. [-]: 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-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc45.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/tmp30k5yzzb')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/willynilly/rfc3987-syntax/archive/v1.1.0/rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd8847eae35ca0668231026b64a32ea9b5bbb03c0aa3c8d02a4daa86de460dfc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd8847eae35ca0668231026b64a32ea9b5bbb03c0aa3c8d02a4daa86de460dfc Requires -------- python3-rfc3987-syntax (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(lark) Provides -------- python3-rfc3987-syntax: python-rfc3987-syntax python3-rfc3987-syntax python3.14-rfc3987-syntax python3.14dist(rfc3987-syntax) python3dist(rfc3987-syntax) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2444060 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, fonts, R, Ocaml, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) pyproject.toml seems to have an incorrect or outdated license specification, Apache-2.0 https://github.com/willynilly/rfc3987-syntax/pull/13 If not merged, may need to update licensing information. b) Koji build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=142972629 c) Approved. d) Please resetpositive review on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373132 this will enable me to imiport the package.
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #1) > Comments: > a) pyproject.toml seems to have an incorrect or outdated license > specification, Apache-2.0 > https://github.com/willynilly/rfc3987-syntax/pull/13 > If not merged, may need to update licensing information. Good catch! Upstream seems to be inactive right now, but as I noted in https://github.com/willynilly/rfc3987-syntax/pull/13#discussion_r2877976308, upstream’s intent seems very clear. I think it’s safe enough to apply your PR as a downstream patch. > d) Please resetpositive review on: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2373132 > this will enable me to imiport the package. Done!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rfc3987-syntax
FEDORA-2026-606c5d683d (python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc45) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 45. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-606c5d683d
FEDORA-2026-606c5d683d (python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc45) has been pushed to the Fedora 45 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-8d9f486c3e (python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8d9f486c3e
FEDORA-2026-1077179a0b (python-rfc3987-syntax-1.1.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1077179a0b
FEDORA-2026-8d9f486c3e has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-8d9f486c3e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8d9f486c3e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-1077179a0b 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-2026-1077179a0b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-1077179a0b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.