https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835367 Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |python-chm Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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=1835367 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1835367-python-chm/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - "%{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info" use "%{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info" otherwiese ther will be an isuse with Python > 3.9 ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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", "GNU General Public License (v2)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1835367-python-chm/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 2 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 is not relocatable. [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: [ ]: 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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-pychm [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. [-]: 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. [-]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1835367-python-chm/srpm- unpacked/python-chm.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pychm-0.8.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm python-chm-debugsource-0.8.6-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm python-chm-0.8.6-1.fc33.src.rpm python3-pychm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chmlib -> chm lib, chm-lib, chili python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/__init__.py python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/chm.py python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/extra.py python-chm.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 15) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. python3-pychm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chmlib -> chm lib, chm-lib, chili python3-pychm.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dottedmag/pychm/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/__init__.py python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/chm.py python3-pychm.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/extra.py warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. python-chm-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dottedmag/pychm/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-pychm: /usr/lib64/python3.8/site-packages/chm/_chmlib.cpython-38-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dottedmag/pychm//archive/v0.8.6/pychm-0.8.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26606fec1e30cf7506c7afa943460c31e8dac87f35b7f178f437574d654cf672 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 23cdc3bbbeb97b57b472a67a0c7c96c6f1ec2d684a73a69fa84aaaeb195cab6c diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- python3-pychm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libchm.so.0()(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-chm-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-pychm: python-pychm python3-pychm python3-pychm(x86-64) python3.8-pychm python3.8dist(pychm) python3dist(pychm) python-chm-debugsource: python-chm-debugsource python-chm-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1835367 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Java, 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=1835367 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Fabian can you review this packages too please? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835421 Cheers, -- 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=1835367 --- Comment #5 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh let me fix that asap... Cheers, -- 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=1835367 --- Comment #7 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Hi Fabian Any update? cheers, -- 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=1835367 --- Comment #9 from Fabian Affolter <mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch&gt; --- You can go on with the import. -- 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=1835367 Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(bazanluis20@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #10 from Luis Bazan <bazanluis20(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Working on it! Cheers, -- 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=1835367 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-9d3df515e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9d3df515e7 -- 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=1835367 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-08-20 01:11:28 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2020-9d3df515e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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