https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653010 Carmen Bianca Bakker <carmenbianca(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=1653010 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- - CC-BY-SA-4.0 The shorthand should be CC-BY-SA - Group is not used in Fedora - Consider using %py3_dist for your dependencies, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_requir... 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/reuse/review-reuse/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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 ------- Checking: reuse-0.3.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm reuse-0.3.3-1.fc30.src.rpm reuse.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C REUSE reuse.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter reuse.noarch: W: invalid-license CC-BY-SA-4.0 reuse.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse HTTP Error 404: Not Found reuse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reuse reuse.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C REUSE reuse.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter reuse.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-SA-4.0 reuse.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://git.fsfe.org/reuse/reuse HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. -- 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=1653010 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #3) LGTM, package approved. From Tom answer to your mail: The 4.0 version of the Creative Commons licenses are as good as the 3.0 versions. I have updated the links to the CC licenses to point to the 4.0 revision, no change in License tag in package spec files is required. ~tom You still need to find a sponsor. -- 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=1653010 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #5) Yes. -- 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