https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977733 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mhroncok(a)redhat.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mhroncok(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec sanity (yes, I realize most of this was introduced by me initially in 2019): 1) %global pypi_name importlib_metadata %global pkg_name importlib-metadata I think this rather complicates the spec as it is harder to read. Consider not using the macros and spell out the names literally as needed in the spec instead. In any case, the package on PyPI is spelled as https://pypi.org/project/importlib-metadata, so the %pypi_name value is a tad confusing. Consider %dist_name if you don't want to get rid of the macros completely. 2) URL: http://importlib-metadata.readthedocs.io/ Please, prefer https urls when available. 3) %description .... Consider marginalizing the description to avoid repetition. Please use a fresh description from upstream, the one in spec seems a bit outdated. 4) # Test dependencies ... Consider expanding the comment to say why we don't fetch those via %pyproject_buildrequirs (I guess theya re mixed with performence, style and coverage deps in upstream, right?). Will run automated checks now. -- 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=1977733 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Package is APPROVED. 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". [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. [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]: 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 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 ===== 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. [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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-importlib-metadata-4.6.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-importlib-metadata-4.6.0-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-importlib-metadata.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked python-importlib-metadata.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backported -> back ported, back-ported, backpacked 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output due to rpmlint 2. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/importlib_metadata/impor... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a5611fea3768d3d967c447ab4e93f567d95db92225b43b7b238dbfb855d70bb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a5611fea3768d3d967c447ab4e93f567d95db92225b43b7b238dbfb855d70bb Requires -------- python3-importlib-metadata (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(zipp) Provides -------- python3-importlib-metadata: python-importlib-metadata python3-importlib-metadata python3.10-importlib-metadata python3.10dist(importlib-metadata) python3dist(importlib-metadata) -- 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=1977733 Bug 1977733 depends on bug 1977714, which changed state. Bug 1977714 Summary: Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977714 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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