Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rply.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rply-0.7.8-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: Converts RELAX NG schemata in Compact syntax (rnc) to the equivalent schema in the XML-based default RELAX NG syntax. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a review for unretirement of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rnc2rng. The project is still maintained upstream, albeit very minimally; see https://github.com/djc/rnc2rng/issues/41. It is still needed for the bidscoin → python-duecredit → python-citeproc-py → python-rnc2rng → python-rply dependency chain.
Cannot find any valid SRPM URL for this ticket. Common causes are: - You didn't specify `SRPM URL: ...` in the ticket description or any of your comments - The URL schema isn't HTTP or HTTPS - The SRPM package linked in your URL doesn't match the package name specified in the ticket summary --- 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.
Oops! Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rnc2rng.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-rnc2rng-2.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10238336 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2448744-python-rnc2rng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10238336-python-rnc2rng/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.
Looking good. The only thing worth double-checking before approval is if the license field needs to include public domain in it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ^ False alarm, covered by declarative build bits. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rnc2rng See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ^ This is a re-review, so expected. - License field needs double-checking, as there's a file that is under the public domain. - Rpmlint points out that there's no man page, but that's optional to include (I'm happy to leave it out given that upstream here is inactive etc. and we're only keeping it in Fedora for dependent packages) ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora- reviews/2448744-python-rnc2rng/licensecheck.txt ^ A file `serializer.py` is released in the public domain, so the license field needs to include this too: ``` # Convert an RELAX NG compact syntax schema to a Node tree # This file released to the Public Domain by David Mertz ``` [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14 [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 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 2352 bytes in 2 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). [x]: 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-rnc2rng-2.7.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-rnc2rng-2.7.0-1.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/tmpa1_s5y5j')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-rnc2rng.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rnc2rng 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 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-rnc2rng.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rnc2rng 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/r/rnc2rng/rnc2rng-2.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd9ffbbd69d09cb07e6e7a8cf80fd28703fdc6d3b9026f8756b49cbe3314676b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd9ffbbd69d09cb07e6e7a8cf80fd28703fdc6d3b9026f8756b49cbe3314676b Requires -------- python3-rnc2rng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(rply) Provides -------- python3-rnc2rng: python-rnc2rng python3-rnc2rng python3.14-rnc2rng python3.14dist(rnc2rng) python3dist(rnc2rng) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2448744 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4) > Looking good. The only thing worth double-checking before approval is if the > license field needs to include public domain in it. Good catch! I agree with you. I will submit the public-domain dedication to https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data and update this submission.
> - Rpmlint points out that there's no man page, but that's optional to include > (I'm happy to leave it out given that upstream here is inactive etc. and > we're only keeping it in Fedora for dependent packages) Yeah, I thought about including one, but originally decided not to bother given that the command doesn’t even have --help output. As long as I’m revisiting this, though, I might as well hack together a quick man page based on reading rnc2rng/__main__.py.
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260324/python-rnc2rng.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20260324/python-rnc2rng-2.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2134655 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 10238336 to 10256577
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10256577 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2448744-python-rnc2rng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10256577-python-rnc2rng/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rnc2rng Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Cool, LGTM XXX APPROVED XXX
Thanks! https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13283
FEDORA-2026-b686e8df79 (python-rnc2rng-2.7.0-15.fc44 and python-rply-0.7.8-22.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b686e8df79
FEDORA-2026-b686e8df79 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-b686e8df79 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-b686e8df79 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-b686e8df79 (python-rnc2rng-2.7.0-15.fc44 and python-rply-0.7.8-22.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.