https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913 J. Scheurich <mufti11(a)web.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mufti11(a)web.de --- Comment #1 from J. Scheurich <mufti11(a)web.de&gt; --- rpmlint find errors $ rpmlint python3-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/conftest_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/setup_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/test_skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/travis_install.template 644 /bin/bash python3-pyscaffold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary putup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 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=1669913 Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Then if those are generic template files, should you really be replacing env in the shebang? -- 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=1669913 Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bazanluis20(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |bazanluis20(a)gmail.com -- 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=1669913 --- Comment #5 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file license_affero_3.0.template is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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]: 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-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-pyscaffold-doc-3.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc30.src.rpm python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/conftest_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/setup_py.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/test_skeleton.template 644 /usr/bin/python3 python3-pyscaffold.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyscaffold/templates/travis_install.template 644 /bin/bash python3-pyscaffold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary putup 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- python-pyscaffold-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python3-pyscaffold (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-setuptools python3-setuptools_scm python3dist(pytest-runner) Provides -------- python-pyscaffold-doc: python-pyscaffold-doc python3-pyscaffold: python3-pyscaffold python3.7dist(pyscaffold) python3dist(pyscaffold) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/P/PyScaffold/PyScaffold-3.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2286368ce628142f9ba090a3fc401065a1b1fcb8fff7ee21b7f6fa83a3c01bcb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2286368ce628142f9ba090a3fc401065a1b1fcb8fff7ee21b7f6fa83a3c01bcb Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1669913 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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=1669913 Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |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=1669913 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks very much! Repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9547 -- 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=1669913 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-pyscaffold-3.1-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6f6ff97a6b -- 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=1669913 --- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4) For things that only exist in Fedora yes, but are these not generic templates to produce Python *packages* that you might put on, e.g., PyPI? -- 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=1669913 --- Comment #13 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I'm not talking about Python 2, but about putting packages on PyPI. If you put scripts on there with /usr/bin/python3, then they will not use the virtualenv python (whether it's 2 or 3). But now that I look at it a little closer, I don't think any of these files actually need a shebang, and it should be removed. I will open a PR for it upstream. -- 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