https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gsun@redhat.com, | |mhroncok@redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- This is informal review as I'm not sponsored.

The upstream is with MIT license and Modern Style with sublicense, the SPDX identifier in the spec is accurate:

https://github.com/elijahandrews/flake8-blind-except/blob/master/LICENSE

The %check part is with %pytest --doctest-modules which is same from the project doc and the test pass.

rpmlint on srpm, spec and built rpm all pass:

# rpmlint results/python-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ==================================== [root@localhost 2141866-python-flake8-blind-except]# rpmlint results/python3-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ==================================== [root@localhost 2141866-python-flake8-blind-except]# rpmlint srpm/python-flake8-blind-except.spec =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/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/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

==================================== 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====================================

The package requires: Requires -------- python3-flake8-blind-except (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3dist(flake8) python3dist(pycodestyle)

as the package is flake8 extension and in code require pycodestyle: https://github.com/elijahandrews/flake8-blind-except/blob/master/flake8_blin...

so the require info is come from manual generation config in spec:

Requires: %{py3_dist flake8} Requires: %{py3_dist pycodestyle}

@Miro is this expected, since upstream did not maintain requirement explicitly in the repo?

Test with install the built rpm pass with provide and require info.

Fedora review with manually review:

Package Review ==============

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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". [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]: 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. [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. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elijahandrews/flake8-blind-except/archive/v0.2.1/flake8-b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d418273d9595f18d25ef8bd43af27f78aa5a29753207990854bf3ecb198cd955 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d418273d9595f18d25ef8bd43af27f78aa5a29753207990854bf3ecb198cd955

Requires -------- python3-flake8-blind-except (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3dist(flake8) python3dist(pycodestyle)

Provides -------- python3-flake8-blind-except: python-flake8-blind-except python3-flake8-blind-except python3.11-flake8-blind-except python3.11dist(flake8-blind-except) python3dist(flake8-blind-except)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141866 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, C/C++, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Scott, why are flake8 and pycodestyle required manually? Should that be fixed upstream?

Wayne, are you trying to install a rawhide package on non-rawhide?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Got it. Should the manual dependency be done as OR then, considering that can be expressed as an RPM dependency?

Requires: (%{py3_dist flake8} or %{py3_dist pycodestyle}) Suggests: %{py3_dist flake8}

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #8 from Wayne Sun gsun@redhat.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4)

Scott, why are flake8 and pycodestyle required manually? Should that be fixed upstream?

Wayne, are you trying to install a rawhide package on non-rawhide?

Yes, it's just for check the require info when install the package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

Scott K Logan logans@cottsay.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(logans@cottsay.ne | |t) |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |clalancette@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |clalancette@gmail.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #10 from Chris Lalancette clalancette@gmail.com --- 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/clalancette/2141866-python-flake8-blind-except/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 2688 bytes in 1 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. [-]: 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: [x]: 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. [-]: 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-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc40.noarch.rpm python-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.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/tmpycoh_6re')] checks: 32, packages: 2

python-flake8-blind-except.src: E: spelling-error ('pycodestyle', '%description -l en_US pycodestyle -> peristyle') python3-flake8-blind-except.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pycodestyle', '%description -l en_US pycodestyle -> peristyle') ============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.5 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-flake8-blind-except.noarch: E: spelling-error ('pycodestyle', '%description -l en_US pycodestyle -> peristyle') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/elijahandrews/flake8-blind-except/archive/v0.2.1/flake8-b... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d418273d9595f18d25ef8bd43af27f78aa5a29753207990854bf3ecb198cd955 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d418273d9595f18d25ef8bd43af27f78aa5a29753207990854bf3ecb198cd955

Requires -------- python3-flake8-blind-except (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3dist(flake8) python3dist(pycodestyle)

Provides -------- python3-flake8-blind-except: python-flake8-blind-except python3-flake8-blind-except python3.12-flake8-blind-except python3.12dist(flake8-blind-except) python3dist(flake8-blind-except)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flake8-blind-except

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c (python-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5383f71b0c (python-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5383f71b0c

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-5383f71b0c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-5383f71b0c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5383f71b0c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2141866

--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-1bd8b2a29c (python-flake8-blind-except-0.2.1-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.