https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- identify/vendor/licenses.py is not a licence for this code; it's a list of licenses to detect. It should not be marked as %license.

Can you not skip tests that use editdistance instead of skipping all tests? Or better yet is to package it too.

Package Review ==============

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

Issues: =======

===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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. [?]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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]: 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. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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: python3-identify-1.4.7-2.fc32.noarch.rpm python-identify-1.4.7-2.fc32.src.rpm python3-identify.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary identify-cli 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-identify.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/chriskuehl/identify <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-identify.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary identify-cli 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/chriskuehl/identify/archive/v1.4.7/python-identify-1.4.7.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26c885fa158aeb16ecfc4ed92f4a380e9b3ed486d60188e30a765e0bb4759e67 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26c885fa158aeb16ecfc4ed92f4a380e9b3ed486d60188e30a765e0bb4759e67

Requires -------- python3-identify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.8dist(setuptools)

Provides -------- python3-identify: python-identify python3-identify python3.8dist(identify) python3dist(identify)

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1765265 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Java, R, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

--- Comment #3 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/python-packages/fedora-...

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/python-packages/fedora-...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265 Bug 1765265 depends on bug 1771215, which changed state.

Bug 1771215 Summary: Review Request: python-editdistance - Fast implementation of the edit distance(Levenshtein distance) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771215

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com --- Sorry for the delay... had to wait for the rawhide servers to sync the updated repo list.

Anyhow, the package: python-editdistance has been pushed off onto rawhide. Updates for f31, f30 and f29 are also pushed on Bodhi, and are available in the testing repos.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

--- Comment #7 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com ---

But do note that you forgot to remove the comment about editdistance being unavailable.

I'll fix this during import. TY.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed| |2019-11-27 14:16:36

--- Comment #9 from Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com --- Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-602a06c699 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-602a06c699

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765265

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2019-11-27 14:16:36 |2019-12-10 02:54:29

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-identify-1.4.7-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.