https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Michel Lind <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2229456 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229456 [Bug 2229456] python-hypothesis-6.96.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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=2259374

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; --- 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/2259374-python-sphinx-jsonschema/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. [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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: 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). [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. [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-sphinx-jsonschema-1.19.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-sphinx-jsonschema-1.19.1-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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/tmp4_qov8ju')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require docutils python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require requests python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require jsonpointer python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: python-missing-require pyyaml python3-sphinx-jsonschema.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx-jsonschema/sphinx... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b2385fe1c7acf2e759152aefed0cb17c920645b2a75c9934000c9c528e7d53c1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b2385fe1c7acf2e759152aefed0cb17c920645b2a75c9934000c9c528e7d53c1 Requires -------- python3-sphinx-jsonschema (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(docutils) python3.12dist(jsonpointer) python3.12dist(pyyaml) python3.12dist(requests) Provides -------- python3-sphinx-jsonschema: python-sphinx-jsonschema python3-sphinx-jsonschema python3.12-sphinx-jsonschema python3.12dist(sphinx-jsonschema) python3dist(sphinx-jsonschema) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2259374 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, fonts, R, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #5 from Michel Lind <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; --- (In reply to Davide Cavalca from comment #2) I had a comment above the commented out github source line saying tests are known to be broken, but yeah... turns out the license is missing from the PyPI archive too so I switched to the GitHub source and %bcond_with-ed it README.rst added to doc Docs built -- 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #7 from Davide Cavalca <davide(a)cavalca.name&gt; --- You probably want %check %if %{with tests} %tox %else %pyproject_check_import sphinx-jsonschema %endif Besides that, APPROVED -- 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #9 from Michel Lind <michel(a)michel-slm.name&gt; --- Ah, thanks. The check import is safe to run unconditionally anyway, but yeah I forgot to add back the tox invocation -- 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-01-21 05:18:12 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-7706323fc2 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 -- 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-cedb630c30 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 on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259374 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2024-f0c1a5129a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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=2259374 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...