[Bug 2274272] Review Request: python-zstarfile - Tarfile extension with additional compression algorithms and PEP 706 by default

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274272

Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga <mikel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
approved!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[-]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-
     zstarfile/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages,
     /usr/share/licenses, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/doc,
     /usr/share
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib,
     /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/licenses, /usr,
     /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1455 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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.
[ ]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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]: 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: Sources 0, 1 and 2 are not passed to gpgverify.
[x]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-zstarfile-0.2.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-zstarfile-0.2.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8azsifil')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://meta.sr.ht/~gotmax23.pgp :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
65dfebf88a8d8b1d7fa0819616fa7ae6f627f6538bffc137519d1c60098dc928
https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/zstarfile/refs/download/v0.2.0/zstarfile-0.2.0.tar.gz.asc
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
1f58b749d814b1ae3b8811ed73adb7075d3c3eece96e8196669d9e23ec38621c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1f58b749d814b1ae3b8811ed73adb7075d3c3eece96e8196669d9e23ec38621c
https://git.sr.ht/~gotmax23/zstarfile/refs/download/v0.2.0/zstarfile-0.2.0.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
bdb637d63131ebbd5bf8a047e3140017fc5b32fec80f1ddcfd4e9b2ebe828dfb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bdb637d63131ebbd5bf8a047e3140017fc5b32fec80f1ddcfd4e9b2ebe828dfb


Requires
--------
python3-zstarfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-zstarfile:
    python-zstarfile
    python3-zstarfile
    python3.12-zstarfile
    python3.12dist(zstarfile)
    python3dist(zstarfile)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
python-zstarfile --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, Perl, Haskell,
R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
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=2274272

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202274272%23c1
--
_______________________________________________
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux