https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I've noticed one thing: The RPM version needs to be 1.0.0~a9 or else it will sort higher than 1.0.0 final. -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) Actually with %writevars -f pyproject.toml 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #5 from Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0~a9-3.... -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Issues: remove_hatch-nodejs-version.patch has no comment in the specfile and no commit message either. In order to understand why it is needed, I must have read the diff and made assumptions. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamSt... python-jupyter-collaboration.spec:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17) (The tab is just trailing and should be removed.) python3-jupyter-collaboration.noarch: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension/schemas/(a)jupyter/collaboration-extension/package.json.orig (I don't say this is a blocker but might be a good idea to fix that upsream?) License: BSD-3-Clause -> BSD-3-Clause AND MIT: jupyter_collaboration/labextension/static/third-party-licenses.json is MIT packages/collaboration/src/cursors.ts is BSD 3-Clause AND MIT /usr/share/jupyter/labextensions/(a)jupyter/collaboration-extension/static/third-party-licenses.json also mentions a couple bundled libraries (not provided from the spec) licensed as MIT -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Assignee|mhroncok(a)redhat.com |nobody(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I might not be able to finish this before I leave for vacation in 2 days, so I am unassigning myself not to block others. -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #9 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This package should require python-jupyter-filesystem - same as all the other ones which place configs in %{_sysconfdir}/jupyter/jupyter_server_config.d/ -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #11 from Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you for the review. Requirements and the license fixed. Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-jupyter-collaboration-1.0.0-1.fc3... -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #13 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Can this be mitigated by changing in %files: %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension to %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter ? -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 --- Comment #15 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This makes sense to me, the directory name doesn't contain elements unique for this package and it might happen it'll be reused by other Jupyter components. -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Karolina Surma <ksurma(a)redhat.com&gt; --- I used the updated python-jupyter-core to build the package again, now the ownership is fixed: %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter - owned by python-jupyter-filesystem %{_datadir}/jupyter/labextensions/@jupyter/collaboration-extension - owned by python3-jupyter-collaboration Package APPROVED. Please build it only with/after https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jupyter-core/pull-request/16 is available 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "MIT License", "MIT License BSD 3-Clause License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ksurma/tmp/2213169-python-jupyter-collaboration/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [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. -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-06-27 09:24:11 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-b051d09ef4 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213169 Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ERRATA |RAWHIDE --- Comment #21 from Lumír Balhar <lbalhar(a)redhat.com&gt; --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102705004 -- 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=2213169 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...