https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2095005 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095005 [Bug 2095005] Review Request: python-rfc3339-validator - Pure python RFC3339 validator -- 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=2095974

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |gotmax(a)e.email --- Comment #2 from Maxwell G <gotmax(a)e.email&gt; --- 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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: [ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [ ]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-openapi-schema-validator , python3-openapi-schema- validator+rfc3339-validator , python3-openapi-schema-validator+strict- rfc3339 , python3-openapi-schema-validator+isodate The is a noarch package. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://github.com/p1c2u/openapi-schema-validator/releases/tag/0.3.0 [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Submitter included a COPR with builds for all arches! [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/p1c2u/openapi-schema-validator/archive/0.2.3/openapi-s... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3e4a2a53d8302127aefbee02c8784b3e648f8a5dd71f757aa98c83dc1a09a705 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3e4a2a53d8302127aefbee02c8784b3e648f8a5dd71f757aa98c83dc1a09a705 Requires -------- python3-openapi-schema-validator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(jsonschema) < 5~~ with python3.11dist(jsonschema) >= 3) python(abi) python3-openapi-schema-validator+rfc3339-validator (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-openapi-schema-validator python3.11dist(rfc3339-validator) python3-openapi-schema-validator+strict-rfc3339 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-openapi-schema-validator python3.11dist(strict-rfc3339) python3-openapi-schema-validator+isodate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-openapi-schema-validator python3.11dist(isodate) Provides -------- python3-openapi-schema-validator: python-openapi-schema-validator python3-openapi-schema-validator python3.11-openapi-schema-validator python3.11dist(openapi-schema-validator) python3dist(openapi-schema-validator) python3-openapi-schema-validator+rfc3339-validator: python-openapi-schema-validator+rfc3339-validator python3-openapi-schema-validator+rfc3339-validator python3.11-openapi-schema-validator+rfc3339-validator python3.11dist(openapi-schema-validator[rfc3339-validator]) python3dist(openapi-schema-validator[rfc3339-validator]) python3-openapi-schema-validator+strict-rfc3339: python-openapi-schema-validator+strict-rfc3339 python3-openapi-schema-validator+strict-rfc3339 python3.11-openapi-schema-validator+strict-rfc3339 python3.11dist(openapi-schema-validator[strict-rfc3339]) python3dist(openapi-schema-validator[strict-rfc3339]) python3-openapi-schema-validator+isodate: python-openapi-schema-validator+isodate python3-openapi-schema-validator+isodate python3.11-openapi-schema-validator+isodate python3.11dist(openapi-schema-validator[isodate]) python3dist(openapi-schema-validator[isodate]) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2095974 -L /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2095005-python-rfc3339-validator/results/repo Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Built with local dependencies: /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2095005-python-rfc3339-validator/results/repo/python3-rfc3339-validator-0.1.4-1.fc37.noarch.rpm -- 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=2095974

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Hmm, I just noticed: It seems this was released in the last few days. Please expect another update shortly with the latest version. -- 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=2095974

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 --- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley <code(a)musicinmybrain.net&gt; --- Thank you for the careful review! Repository requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/45525 -- 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=2095974

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 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; --- FEDORA-2022-62f2e4c7a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-62f2e4c7a6 -- 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=2095974

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095974 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-07-07 00:45:09 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2022-62f2e4c7a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2095974