https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031063 Dan Čermák <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com Flags| |needinfo?(acrandom(a)pm.me) --- Comment #1 from Dan Čermák <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; --- Can you please put the spec and source rpm somewhere that doesn't include spaces? It breaks 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=2031063

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031063 acrandom(a)pm.me changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(acrandom(a)pm.me) |needinfo?(dan.cermak@cgc-in | |struments.com) --- Comment #2 from acrandom(a)pm.me --- @dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com I’ve updated the links as requested. -- 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=2031063

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031063 Dan Čermák <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Dan Čermák <dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com&gt; --- LGTM, package approved. You might eventually want to switch to rpmautospec (https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/), but this is not required initially. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: python3-proton-client.spec should be python-proton-client.spec See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_spec_file_naming ===== 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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 49 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-scm/review-python3-proton-client/licensecheck.txt [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. [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]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define unmangled_name proton- client, %define version 0.7.1, %define github_repo_name proton-python- client [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. ===== 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-proton-client-0.7.1-2.fc36.noarch.rpm python-proton-client-0.7.1-2.fc36.src.rpm python3-proton-client.noarch: W: no-documentation python-proton-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US srp -> rps, sip, sap python-proton-client.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-python-client/archive/refs/tags/0.7.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88d2546a922d9053988b5e1863bf6cf965e97b4c643cd879f16bb3f0b5f02b5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88d2546a922d9053988b5e1863bf6cf965e97b4c643cd879f16bb3f0b5f02b5e Requires -------- python3-proton-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-bcrypt python3-gnupg python3-pyOpenSSL python3-requests Provides -------- python3-proton-client: python-proton-client python3-proton-client python3.10-proton-client python3.10dist(proton-client) python3dist(proton-client) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --name python3-proton-client Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Java, R, Perl, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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=2031063

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031063 Justin W. Flory (he/him) <foss(a)jwf.io&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #5 from Justin W. Flory (he/him) <foss(a)jwf.io&gt; --- I added the Proton SIG list to this ticket for future correspondence. I noticed the dist-git repo but it seems like there are no new package builds submitted. -- 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=2031063

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031063 --- Comment #7 from acrandom(a)pm.me --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #6) Hey Mattia thanks for the message. Do please retire the package. To give some context: Back when I uploaded the package, we were intending in publishing our current client, on its entirety. But at the same time, there were internal pilots project for a new client (which we recently released a pre-release version), and thus we decided that is was pointless in adding this package in official repos since it'll become obsolete. -- 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=2031063