https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #1 from Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I am a new packager and I 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |1276941 (fedora-neuro) CC| |sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. |in.net) |com) --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-nose is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ If you already had a package that used nose, you would not be compelled to change it right away, but a new package can’t be approved with a nose dependency. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateNose for details on the deprecation and typical workarounds. The best thing to do is to devise a patch that removes the nose dependency, submit it upstream (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamSt...), and apply it downstream. This is not very hard in the case of this package, since nose is used only for the nose.tools.nottest decorator, and that in only one spot. I sent a PR upstream (https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/pull/27). You can add: Patch0: %{url}/pull/27.patch and change %autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit} to %autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit} -p1 then fetch the patch with spectool -g python-read-roi.spec replace BuildRequires: python3-pytest BuildRequires: python3-nose with BuildRequires: python3dist(nose2) (I can’t get pytest to work here as a test runner), and, replace %pytest with PYTHONPATH='%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}' nose2 - You’ve packaged from a particular commit in the upstream git repository. It’s okay to do this (preferably given a concrete reason, which it’s nice to mention in a spec file comment), but you’ll need to ensure the snapshot information field is in the Release (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_sn...). The easiest way to add the snapshot information is to use the “forge” macros (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_com...). However, the commit you selected is the same as the 1.6.0 release tag, which makes me think this was just copied from another spec file rather than intentional. You can still use the “forge” macros to package from a tag on GitHub, but it’s so easy to construct the URL that I recommend doing it directly. Instead of: %global commit 0dea04fb83fe7096ae68753f0d75299a5426f372 %global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7}) Name: python-read-roi Version: 1.6.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with imagej License: BSD URL: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/ Source0: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit... […] %autosetup -n read-roi-%{commit} consider: Name: python-read-roi Version: 1.6.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Read ROI files .zip or .roi generated with imagej License: BSD URL: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/ Source0: https://github.com/hadim/read-roi/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.t... […] %autosetup -n read-roi-%{version} or even, if you like, shorten the Source0 as: Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - It is OK to call %py3_check_import read_roi but it is really only intended as a better-than-nothing “smoke tests” for packages where the upstream tests are not present or, for one reason or another, can’t be run in the RPM build environment. Since you’re running the upstream tests, feel free to drop it. Note also that there is now a %pyproject_check_import that needs no arguments and automatically finds and imports all public API modules in the package, and I would suggest using this instead where a %*_check_import macro is needed. - This changelog format is not correct: *Thu Oct 28 2021 Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786 AT gmail DOT com> - 1.6.0-1 for read-roi You can use “rpmdev-bumpspec -c 'My message here' *.spec” to construct a correctly-formatted one. In particular, the version can’t wrap onto a second line, and I don’t know what the “for read-roi” is for. This should look something like: * Thu Oct 28 2021 Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786 AT gmail DOT com> - 1.6.0-1 - The package for python-glymur had most of the same issues noted above at first (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693). Is there a spec file template or tutorial that you were both following? Perhaps I can suggest a few improvements to it. ===== 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2018238-python-read-roi/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 (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. [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 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: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. (based on tests passing) [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. [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/hadim/read-roi/archive/0dea04fb83fe7096ae68753f0d75299... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a42143b0d335b2ac8c186103f8b5b6c7611cfa994e8a72da01f9aeef84b2a1d Requires -------- python3-read-roi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-read-roi: python-read-roi python3-read-roi python3.10-read-roi python3.10dist(read-roi) python3dist(read-roi) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2018238 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 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: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #5 from Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thank you @code(a)musicinmybrain.net. I have made update has suggested. This is the updated spec and srpm url: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi-1.6.0-1.fc... Changes -Added Patch0 -Added BuildRequires -Updated Source0 -Updated changelog -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #7 from Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thank you @code(a)musicinmybrain.net. I see reasons with your suggestion after going through the attached documentations. Here is the updated spec and srpm url: Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi.spec SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-read-roi/raw/master/f/python-read-roi-1.6.0-1.fc... -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Adeleye, As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Spons..., could you please list the reviews you've done here so we can take a look at them? Cheers, Ankur -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #11 from Adeleye Opeyemi <adebola786(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Ankur, Below are the list of reviews I have done so far: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016693#c3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017610#c2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017716#c2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016786#c4 -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&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 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(adebola786@gmail. | |com) | --- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Resetting review approved flag so that the scm request can be made (doesn't work at the moment because the flag was set more than 60 days ago). -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 --- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-read-roi -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c -- 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 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-2022-94e1653bc4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-94e1653bc4 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=2018238

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018238 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-02-19 01:09:39 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-4227851f4c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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=2018238