[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-06-14 22:59:00 --- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Imported and built in rawhide (with the requested fix). -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-publicsuffix2 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > Package Review > == > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > === > - Package contains BR: python3-devel Sorry, *must* was missing. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Thanks for the quick review, Fabian. What's wrong with BR: python3-devel? Python guidelines say: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies Dependencies Packages building for Python 3 will need BuildRequires: python3-devel. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python3-devel
= 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 Mozilla Public License
(v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v2.0)". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1842475-python-
publicsuffix2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.9
[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 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[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:
[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: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch Flags||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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- $ rpmlint . python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/publicsuffix2/public_suffix_list.dat ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Spelling errors should obviously be ignored. The dangling-relative-symlink warning is expected. License (MIT) is different from upstream (MIT and MPLv2.0), as the MPLv2.0-licensed public_suffix_list.dat file is unbundled. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45279055 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
