https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1929991 --- Comment #1 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com&gt; --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62202842 -- 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=1929991 --- Comment #2 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/python-backrefs.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/python-backrefs-5.0.1-2.fc34... Followed the guidelines given in 192990 package 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=1929991 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-... -- 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=1929991 --- Comment #6 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Sorry about 404 error. I realized I have wrong path set for package upload using fedora-create-review. Fixed this package for above comment suggestions. Below URL's will work fine. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-... -- 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=1929991 --- Comment #8 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com&gt; --- It is not needed actually, dropped it now. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/python-backrefs.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/python-backrefs-5.0.1-... -- 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=1929991 --- Comment #10 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thanks Miro. I will wait if anyone or you to do this package 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=1929991 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mhroncok(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Ben said the license is weird but OK. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: 1) I would not include the tools/unicodedata/LICENSE file in the package, as the unicodedata are not shipped. 2) I would not include docs/src/markdown/about/license.md either, it is the same as LICENSE. ===== 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unicode Terms of Use". The unicodedata is not shipped. [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. [-]: 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: [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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: 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-backrefs-5.0.1-4.fc35.noarch.rpm python3-backrefs+extras-5.0.1-4.fc35.noarch.rpm python-backrefs-5.0.1-4.fc35.src.rpm python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backrefs -> back refs, back-refs, backrests python3-backrefs+extras.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/facelessuser/backrefs/archive/5.0.1/python-backrefs-5.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f22495b658f4c3c61a31791d1ae2c0c04a7a6e2a1cb688fc47eb7743d52b043 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f22495b658f4c3c61a31791d1ae2c0c04a7a6e2a1cb688fc47eb7743d52b043 Requires -------- python3-backrefs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-backrefs+extras (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-backrefs python3.9dist(regex) Provides -------- python3-backrefs: python-backrefs python3-backrefs python3.9-backrefs python3.9dist(backrefs) python3dist(backrefs) python3-backrefs+extras: python-backrefs+extras python3-backrefs+extras python3.9-backrefs+extras python3.9dist(backrefs[extras]) python3dist(backrefs[extras]) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 1929991 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, Ruby, PHP, fonts, R, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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=1929991 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- APPROVED. -- 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=1929991 --- Comment #16 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Consider adding @python-sig. -- 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