https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173 Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environment| |If this bug requires | |documentation, please | |select an appropriate Doc | |Type value. Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(mhayden(a)redhat.co |in.net) |m) --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: rpmautospec - If you want to build the Sphinx documentation as a PDF, ask me for a PR. - It would make sense to package the examples/ directory as %doc. - There are four extras in setup.py: async, dev, socks, and test. You should create metapackages for the async and socks so that other packages can depend on them. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonExtras#Extras_metapackages Add: %pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{srcname} async socks …except that until https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oauthlib/pull-request/3 is merged, you can only do # Add socks extra once python-oauthlib is updated to 3.1.0 or later: # https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-oauthlib/pull-request/3 %pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{srcname} socks I commented on the PR, so maybe that will occur promptly. - You should run the tests. Change %bcond_with tests […] %pyproject_buildrequires -r […] %pytest to %bcond_without tests […] %pyproject_buildrequires -r %{?with_tests:-t} […] %tox (You could still use %pytest here, but you would need a manual BR on python3dist(pytest) since upstream just uses the unittest module, and %tox works just fine.) You might also choose to add “-x async,socks” to %pyproject_buildrequires (maybe just “-x socks” for now; see the issue about extras metapackages above) in order to verify the extras metapackages are installable, and in case tests are added for these extras in the future without properly adding the dependencies to tox.ini. - The current version is 4.6.0. Please update. ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 194 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2043173-python-tweepy/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. [-]: 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. A separate -doc subpackage would probably be needed if the Sphinx documentation were built. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-tweepy-4.4.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/tweepy-4.4.0.dist-info/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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: 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 (except as noted) [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). [x]: Package functions as described. If I add the tests, they pass. [!]: 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. Some documentation is translated upstream, but description and summary are not. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tweepy/tweepy/archive/v4.4.0/tweepy-4.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 37c83a259841aad98d0d1b6d14170da7032b0eb7590355767b8e7c54df3294db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 37c83a259841aad98d0d1b6d14170da7032b0eb7590355767b8e7c54df3294db Requires -------- python3-tweepy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.10dist(requests) >= 2.11.1) (python3.10dist(requests-oauthlib) < 2~~ with python3.10dist(requests-oauthlib) >= 1) python(abi) Provides -------- python3-tweepy: python-tweepy python3-tweepy python3.10-tweepy python3.10dist(tweepy) python3dist(tweepy) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2043173 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173 Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | Link ID| |Red Hat Bugzilla 2067264 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Package approved; please add a comment above the patch as requested in the Issues below. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. OK: rpmautospec - If you want to build the Sphinx documentation as a PDF, ask me for a PR. - The patch should have a spec file comment describing its upstream status—in this case, that it is a temporary workaround for RHBZ#2067264. ===== 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", "MIT License". 221 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2043173-python-tweepy/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 21 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: 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 [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-tweepy , python3-tweepy+async , python3-tweepy+socks [x]: Package functions as described. (tests pass) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tweepy/tweepy/archive/v4.7.0/tweepy-4.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e2dcdb268aef04272871dd7b40f64b545b7f2e123a7b44c895b9662a412ed47 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e2dcdb268aef04272871dd7b40f64b545b7f2e123a7b44c895b9662a412ed47 Requires -------- python3-tweepy (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(oauthlib) < 4~~ with python3.10dist(oauthlib) >= 3.0.2) (python3.10dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.10dist(requests) (python3.10dist(requests-oauthlib) < 2~~ with python3.10dist(requests-oauthlib) >= 1.2) python(abi) python3-tweepy+async (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(aiohttp) < 4~~ with python3.10dist(aiohttp) >= 3.7.3) python(abi) python3-tweepy python3-tweepy+socks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(requests) < 3~~ with python3.10dist(requests) (python3.10dist(requests[socks]) < 3~~ with python3.10dist(requests[socks]) python(abi) python3-tweepy Provides -------- python3-tweepy: python-tweepy python3-tweepy python3.10-tweepy python3.10dist(tweepy) python3dist(tweepy) python3-tweepy+async: python-tweepy+async python3-tweepy+async python3.10-tweepy+async python3.10dist(tweepy[async]) python3dist(tweepy[async]) python3-tweepy+socks: python-tweepy+socks python3-tweepy+socks python3.10-tweepy+socks python3.10dist(tweepy[socks]) python3dist(tweepy[socks]) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2043173 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 4 python-tweepy.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: tweepy-allow-older-oauthlib.patch python3-tweepy+async.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-tweepy+socks.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.9 s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-983efe7b2f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-983efe7b2f --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4330e4fd48 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4330e4fd48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-983efe7b2f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-983efe7b2f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-983efe7b2f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-03-28 00:17:17 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4330e4fd48 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043173