Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc43.src.rpm description: A copy of the ASDL parser used in CPython 3.5, cleaned a bit. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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* GNU General Public License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/steve/2469062-python-asdl/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/site- packages/__pycache__ [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 1440 bytes in 1 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]: 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 [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-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc45.noarch.rpm python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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/tmp9rooco39')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 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 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fpoli/python-asdl/archive/0.1.5/asdl-0.1.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 156aff7fef608ae18cc0eccbf11fd28a8953bc6684583a00c44a6b7e3247cbbf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 156aff7fef608ae18cc0eccbf11fd28a8953bc6684583a00c44a6b7e3247cbbf Requires -------- python3-asdl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-asdl: python-asdl python3-asdl python3.14-asdl python3.14dist(asdl) python3dist(asdl) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2469062 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, Haskell, fonts, R, Perl, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH 1. False positive Unowned python directories are false postive. 2. Optional - could use "-x dev" to get the nose requirement. Comments 1. Why %pyproject_save_files -L and not %pyproject_save_files -l Better to fail if it goes missing is always my thinking. 2. Some of the line spacing is erratic. 2 lines between build and install but only 1 between check and changelog
> > > 1. False positive Unowned python directories are false postive. > 2. Optional - could use "-x dev" to get the nose requirement. > Prefer to add requirement directly so that extra development dependencies are not installed. Nose should not be used on Fedora, but nose2 is allowed. > > Comments > > 1. Why %pyproject_save_files -L and not %pyproject_save_files -l > > Better to fail if it goes missing is always my thinking. > Thanks. Fixed. > 2. Some of the line spacing is erratic. 2 lines between build and install > but only 1 between check and changelog Have used 1 line except before the build section. spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10582949 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2469062-python-asdl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10582949-python-asdl/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.
Sorry if I missed this last time. That nose2 in the check should probably prefixed with %{py3_test_envvars} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_other_test_runners
(In reply to Steve Traylen from comment #4) > Sorry if I missed this last time. > > That nose2 in the check should probably prefixed with > > %{py3_test_envvars} > > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_other_test_runners Thanks updated: spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Approved
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-asdl Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
FEDORA-2026-86087f79dc (python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-86087f79dc
FEDORA-2026-010e846633 (python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-010e846633
Thanks for the review.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/390971/
FEDORA-2026-010e846633 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-2026-010e846633 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-010e846633 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-86087f79dc 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-2026-86087f79dc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-86087f79dc See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-86087f79dc (python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2026-010e846633 (python-asdl-0.1.5-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.