https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229857 --- Comment #16 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the update. A few more notes: Referring to https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2229857-pinnwand/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06575038-pinnwand/fedora-review/review.txt: - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-sqlalchemy1.3 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ This is seems to be a bug in fedora-review. The package actually requires "python3.12dist(sqlalchemy) < 2.0.15~~" which resolves to python3-sqlalchemy-1.4.49-2.fc39 at least on my system. It seems this was your intention, so this is not an actual issue. - 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. Note: License file AUTHORS.rst is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text It would make sense to include this file in %license as it creates the reference to the main author. Other notes: - You didn't enumerate the Source files explicitly. This technically works, but I've never seen it done that way. I assume it may break when the order or number of source references is changed, at which point another file may be copied into the destination systemd unit file. The RPM documentation just mentions that numbers may be added but doesn't expand on whether it's required. - I'm a bit confused by the note in the spec file: # NOTE(neil): 2023-10-26 pinnwand 1.4.0 wants 0.19, but Fedora has 20.X # at the same time, 1.5.0 wants sqlalchemy >= 2, but Fedora has not upgraded to # it yet. See: # https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sqlalchemy/pull-request/16 I assume the 0.19 and 20.x (should also be 0.20.x) refers to the docutils sed patch that was removed in the 1.5.0 version of the spec. It was probably removed in error, as the resulting package cannot be installed without it due to a missing dependency on python3.12dist(docutils) >= 0.20.1. - Thanks for filing https://github.com/supakeen/pinnwand/pull/211. You can either carry the sed patch you currently have in the spec file or you can use a neat trick I like to use to reference the pull request as a Patch in the spec file like so: Patch1: https://github.com/supakeen/pinnwand/pull/211.patch Your choice. Both are acceptable to me until the next release with the fix comes out. I like patch reference method because it provides a reference back to where this change stands with upstream. FYI, If you use the patch you'll have to commit that file (211.patch) to dist-git alongside the spec file once the package is approved, mock will not download the file from the URL while building. The %autosetup macro already contains -p1 so it should pick up and apply the patch file automatically. - Your changelog contains a typo. The last message should probably say "Update to 1.5.0", not "Update to 1.4.0". Feel free to remove the changelog entirely and replace it with %autochangelog from rpmautospec (https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/autochangelog.html) and the Release tag with %autorelease (which is now the recommended way of doing it: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_GNU_Hello/#_tags). Your changelog and release numbers will then automatically be generated from the Git commits and their commit messages you use when commit changes to the package to dist-git. Saves you one step when maintaining the package. -- 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=2229857 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202229857%23c16 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
