https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

Jochen Breuer brejoc@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ngompa13@gmail.co | |m)

--- Comment #3 from Jochen Breuer brejoc@gmail.com --- Sure, no problem!

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/brejoc/teampulls/b03722948cc0db14e21b31f86...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- To note, the %{pypi_source} macro is documented here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_fi...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1812190-teampulls/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %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: teampulls-0.2.2-1.fc33.noarch.rpm teampulls-0.2.2-1.fc33.src.rpm teampulls.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip teampulls.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github teampulls.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls teampulls.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary teampulls teampulls.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip teampulls.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github teampulls.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- teampulls.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cli -> cl, clii, clip teampulls.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C teampulls is a cli tool that lists pull requests from Github teampulls.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C teampulls teampulls.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/brejoc/teampulls <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> teampulls.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary teampulls 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/teampulls/teampulls-0.2.2.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa8b6786296b55d28dec1097a69e4051f46f64b333c8b00043bcdcccf22ad284 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa8b6786296b55d28dec1097a69e4051f46f64b333c8b00043bcdcccf22ad284

Requires -------- teampulls (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 config(teampulls) python(abi) python3.8dist(docopt) python3.8dist(python-dateutil) python3.8dist(requests) python3.8dist(toml)

Provides -------- teampulls: config(teampulls) python3.8dist(teampulls) python3dist(teampulls) teampulls

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1812190 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Java, C/C++, PHP, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #9 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- I've sponsored you through as a packager. Welcome to Fedora, Jochen!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/teampulls

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-1a925773e0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1a925773e0

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-03-22 03:08:00

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- teampulls-0.2.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812190

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- teampulls-0.2.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.