[Bug 2352770] New: Review Request: python-usbsdmux - USB-SD-Mux control software and library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Bug ID: 2352770 Summary: Review Request: python-usbsdmux - USB-SD-Mux control software and library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yaneti@declera.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.sr... Description: usbsdmux is used to control a special piece of hardware called the USB-SD-Mux. It can be used via the command line or as a Python library Fedora Account System Username: yaneti
Reported incorrect-fsf-address https://github.com/linux-automation/usbsdmux/issues/91
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/linux-au | |tomation/usbsdmux/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8771674 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-usbsdmux/2352770-python- usbsdmux/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev/rules.d, /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/udev, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [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. [ ]: 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 12212 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpsdp4k39_')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-usbsdmux.spec:18: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{srcname} python-usbsdmux.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsdmux python-usbsdmux.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsdmux-configure python-usbsdmux.spec: W: no-%check-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
python-usbsdmux.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsdmux python-usbsdmux.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary usbsdmux-configure python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux-24.11.1.dist-info/COPYING python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/__main__.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/ctypehelper.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/i2c_gpio.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/sd_regs.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usb2642.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usb2642eeprom.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usbsdmux.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python-usbsdmux/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/linux-automation/usbsdmux/archive/24.11.1/usbsdmux-24.11.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9606e9bc8c67b75a4ab52e447deb12d6cc2900ed2671d3dd43fe2e3b0813a26d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9606e9bc8c67b75a4ab52e447deb12d6cc2900ed2671d3dd43fe2e3b0813a26d
Requires -------- python-usbsdmux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- python-usbsdmux: python-usbsdmux python3.13dist(usbsdmux) python3dist(usbsdmux) usbsdmux
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352770 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, SugarActivity, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Consider using help2man to generate a manpage b) Ensure /usr/lib/udev and /usr/lib/udev/rules.d are owned. dnf repoquery whatowns /usr/lib/udev/rules.d ceph-common kdump-utils rdma-core systemd-udev unifying-receiver-udev c) paho-mqtt is avilable in Fedora: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-paho-mqtt/ may want to add a requires or recommends. d) Please add a check section with at least: %check %pyproject_check_import though ideally %check %pyproject_check_import %pytest e) Consider changing Source0: https://github.com/linux-automation/%%7Bsrcname%7D/archive/%%7Bversion%7D/%%... to Source0: %{url}/%{srcname}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz f) Can the macro %pyproject_save_files be used?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Thanks for looking into it. I tried to follow all your recommendations.
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2084949 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2084949&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8771674 to 8902998
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8902998 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- Unversionned Python dependency found. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependenc...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Unversionned Python dependency found. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Python/#_dependencies
===== 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 Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-usbsdmux/2352770-python- usbsdmux/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/udev(systemd-udev), /usr/lib/udev/rules.d(sgx-libs, ceph-common, systemd-udev, unifying- receiver-udev, rdma-core, kdump-utils) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: 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 12212 bytes in 3 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [-]: 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. [ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/linux- automation/usbsdmux//usbsdmux/archive/24.11.1/usbsdmux-24.11.1.tar.gz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: 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]: 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: python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpgyc4uc0d')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-usbsdmux.spec:21: W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{srcname} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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
python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux-24.11.1.dist-info/licenses/COPYING python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/__main__.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/ctypehelper.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/i2c_gpio.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/sd_regs.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usb2642.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usb2642eeprom.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/usbsdmux/usbsdmux.py python-usbsdmux.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/python-usbsdmux/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Requires -------- python-usbsdmux (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi)
Provides -------- python-usbsdmux: python-usbsdmux python3.13dist(usbsdmux) python3dist(usbsdmux) usbsdmux
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352770 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, R, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a)Please change Buildrequires: python-pytest Buildrequires: python-pytest-mock to Buildrequires: python3dist(pytest) Buildrequires: python3dist(pytest-mock) and Recommends: python-paho-mqtt to Recommends: python3dist(paho-mqtt) and %files -f %{pyproject_files} to %files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files} and Source0: %{url}/%{srcname}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
The names in parenthesis in python3dist(stuff) correspond to the names on PyPI
b) Remove Provides: %{srcname} c) Please remove %dir /usr/lib/udev %dir %{_udevrulesdir} add change %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} to %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} Requires: systemd-udev d) Please also let upstream know to update the license file and address to correspond to what is on the FSF website.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #7 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- -2 - Version the python deps
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-2.fc43.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2086012 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2086012&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8902998 to 8945670
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8945670 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- a) Please change Source0: %{url}/%{srcname}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz to Source0: %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz to ensure package can be downloaded. b) Remove Provides: %{srcname} or add version information c) Please remove %dir /usr/lib/udev %dir %{_udevrulesdir} add change %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} to %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} Requires: systemd-udev d) Please also let upstream know to update the license file and address to correspond to what is on the FSF website.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Sorry, (d) is done https://github.com/linux-automation/usbsdmux/issues/91
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #12 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- -3 - More fixes from the package review process
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-3.fc43.sr...
Thanks again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2086369 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2086369&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8945670 to 8951273
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8951273 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Almost there. Please change
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros BuildRequires: sed
Provides: %{srcname} = %{version}-%{release}
Recommends: python3-paho-mqtt
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
to BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros BuildRequires: sed
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
Please also change %package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} Requires: systemd-udev
%description -n python3-%{srcname} %_description
to
%package -n python3-%{srcname} Summary: %{summary} Requires: systemd-udev
Provides: %{srcname} = %{version}-%{release}
Recommends: python3-paho-mqtt
%description -n python3-%{srcname} %_description
and finally change
%files -f %{pyproject_files} %license COPYING
to %files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files} %license COPYING
This will ensure the correct package is provided and the appropriate directories are owned.
An example build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8957856
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #16 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- -4 - Some more more review fixes
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/python-usbsdmux/python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-4.fc43.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2086883 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2086883&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8951273 to 8958684
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8958684 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #19 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Approved.
Review of one of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358869 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358869 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-usbsdmux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d (python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352770
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-05-03 02:08:30
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6d4316a33d (python-usbsdmux-24.11.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com