https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107842 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok(a)redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec sanity: In my opinion, defining this on top makes the spec file harder to read later, albeit that is my opinionated view. Defining his at the top is a bit untraditional, I would very much prefer if you stick to the order in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_exampl... but again, that is my opinionated view. This is not necessary as the macros are pulled by python3-devel. However, it is not forbidden. This should not be necessary, as the build backend is BuildRequired by %pyproject_buildrequires. Manual dependencies, when otherwise generated, SHOULD not be used. This is deprecated and SHOULD not be used. I suppose this puts an extra empty line at the beginning of the description, which is probably undesired. I see no all or test extras in this software. Please verify this. Consider using %pyproject_save_files and %{pyproject_files}? However, that remains optional. -- 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=2107842

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107842 --- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan <nonamedotc(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks for the comments. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) I actually prefer declaring this at the top. I have changed everything else as pointed out and have updated the SPEC and SRPM. -- 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=2107842

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107842 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5) Indeed: $ rpm -qpl --licensefiles python3-whatthepatch-1.0.2-2.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/whatthepatch-1.0.2.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-whatthepatch/LICENSE Please remove the %license LICENSE line. --------------- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: 1) python3-whatthepatch.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-whatthepatch/README.rst 2) duplicated %license file ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT 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 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. [?]: 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. [?]: 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 (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 1 python3-whatthepatch.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-whatthepatch/README.rst 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/w/whatthepatch/whatthepatc... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c540ea59173e0a291e19c742dd8b406c56e2be039a600edb7c6fc3ae4bbdfa9f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c540ea59173e0a291e19c742dd8b406c56e2be039a600edb7c6fc3ae4bbdfa9f Requires -------- python3-whatthepatch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) BuildRequires ------------- pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(pytest) python3dist(setuptools) >= 40.8 python3dist(wheel) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(DynamicBuildRequires) <= 4.15.0-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 Provides -------- python3-whatthepatch: python-whatthepatch python3-whatthepatch python3.11-whatthepatch python3.11dist(whatthepatch) python3dist(whatthepatch) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2107842 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, R, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, Java, Ruby, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2107842

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107842 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package approved. -- 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=2107842

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107842 --- Comment #10 from Tomas Hrcka <thrcka(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-whatthepatch -- 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=2107842