https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611828 Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fedora(a)georg.so) | --- Comment #2 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so&gt; --- Sure, the direct link to the SRPM is: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gsauthof/fedora/fedora-ra... And the direct SPEC file URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gsauthof/copr-fedora/d83704e0829d7f6da9... -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #4 from Iñaki Ucar <i.ucar86(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Oh, also: - You may consider reusing the global srcname, instead of repeating "asyncssh". - You may consider using %{py3_dist} to list dependencies. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequire... -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #6 from Iñaki Ucar <i.ucar86(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Thanks, Georg. It looks good to me, but I cannot assign this to myself, because I still need a sponsor. I attach below the revised version of the output of the fedora-review tool as a reference for another reviewer. 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. [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 92160 bytes in 40 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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-asyncssh-1.13.3-1.fc28.noarch.rpm python-asyncssh-1.13.3-1.fc28.src.rpm python3-asyncssh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> Asuncion python3-asyncssh.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 python-asyncssh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> Asuncion python-asyncssh.src: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-asyncssh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asyncio -> Asuncion python3-asyncssh.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 python3-asyncssh.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ronf/asyncssh <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- python3-asyncssh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-asyncssh: python3-asyncssh python3.6dist(asyncssh) python3dist(asyncssh) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/asyncssh/asyncssh-1.13.3... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : eb5b190badc5cd2a506a1b6ced3e92f948166974eef7d1abab61acc67aa379e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : eb5b190badc5cd2a506a1b6ced3e92f948166974eef7d1abab61acc67aa379e6 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1611828 Buildroot used: fedora-28-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=1611828 --- Comment #8 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so&gt; --- The asyncssh author explicitly chose the EPL for it's weak copyleft features (cf. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/asyncssh-users/lS8FlyxSVEo/iDsuUH9or-EJ ). When the first code was released in 2013, EPL 2.0 simply wasn't available. EPL 2.0 was just released in August 2018. -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Well, the authors try to get compatible with GPL. Maybe ask upstream to upgrade. https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.60mjudroo8e5 -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) Further: "You must re-license to EPL-2.0 adding GPL Compatibility as per Exhibit A." - but not always needed for LGPL. https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.r4jspab0hx2c https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.hsnsfg4e0htq "a project can use the new version by simply updating the file headers and notices. […] You must gain permission from all copyright holders to re-license the content" https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.tci84nlsqpgw https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.cktcxkzh8ks4 -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #13 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so&gt; --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) FWIW, the EPL 2.0 FAQ lists 4 'major' changes. The _optional_ GPL2+ compatibility (through specifying the GPL as a secondary license) is just one of them: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.a0eux401qus Thus, the EPL 2.0 (without the secondary license option) is as GPL compatible as EPL 1.0, i.e. it isn't GPL compatible. cf. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#Version_2.0 -- 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=1611828 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Sure. I've full trust in the result of comment #6. Sorry for the delay, I had some hope for a license upgrade requested from upstream. Just another hint: Replace explicit path for python3 binary in the follwing line as you also do correctly in %check, the macro is defined within python3-devel. - sed -i &#39;1,1s@^#!.*$@#!/usr/bin/python3(a)&#39; examples/*.py + sed -i &#39;1,1s@^#!.*$@#!%{__python3}(a)&#39; examples/*.py -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #17 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-asyncssh -- 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=1611828 --- Comment #19 from Georg Sauthoff <fedora(a)georg.so&gt; --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #18) Ok, I don't have to use it. I just got the idea from the Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file ). Are the guidelines wrong in this point? -- 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=1611828 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED -- 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=1611828 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-asyncssh-1.13.3-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5b5c69e114 -- 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=1611828 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-08-28 20:55:29 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- python-asyncssh-1.13.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, 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=1611828 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|ERRATA |NOTABUG --- Comment #26 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- For the update to 1.14.0: Please announce new license on devel mailing list. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_Changes -- 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=1611828 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |NOTABUG --- Comment #28 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- (In reply to Georg Sauthoff from comment #27) … Thanks. -- 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