[Bug 2268288] New: Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Bug ID: 2268288
           Summary: Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library
                    for accessing the Forgejo API
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Description: A client library for accessing the Forgejo API
SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo-1.0....
SPEC:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo.spec

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Fedora Review Service  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://codeberg.org/haraba
                   |                            |t/pyforgejo

--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7113800
(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.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Benson Muite  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Doc Type|---                         |If docs needed, set a value
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite  ---
It does not build in rawhide at present. Perhaps relax dependency version
requirements for httpx

[fedora-review-service-build]

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8171161
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field

---
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.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Thanks, fixed.

SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo-1.0....
SPEC:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-pyforgejo/python-pyforgejo.spec

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Created attachment 2053511
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2053511&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 8171161 to 8172474

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8172474
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  Read more:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...

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.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Benson Muite  changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite  ---
Package Review
==============

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

Issues:
=======
- 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 LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

===== 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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or
     generated". 607 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-
     pyforgejo/2268288-python-pyforgejo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-
     packages, /usr/lib/python3.13
[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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 6365 bytes in 1 files.
[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.
[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).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc42.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/tmpwjvx0tkt')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

========= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10
filtered, 0 badness; has taken 8.6 s =========

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 6 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 7.7 s

Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyforgejo/pyforgejo-1.0.2.t...
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
8e483fecfa6919c7386ddca111012eba4da2ae3c36c3b1a7d9fc7526ffda3c59
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8e483fecfa6919c7386ddca111012eba4da2ae3c36c3b1a7d9fc7526ffda3c59

Requires
--------
python3-pyforgejo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.13dist(python-dateutil) < 3~~ with python3.13dist(python-dateutil)
> = 2.8)

python(abi)
    python3.13dist(attrs)
    python3.13dist(httpx)

Provides
--------
python3-pyforgejo:
    python-pyforgejo
    python3-pyforgejo
    python3.13-pyforgejo
    python3.13dist(pyforgejo)
    python3dist(pyforgejo)

Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2268288
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java, C/C++, Ocaml,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Perhaps change
%pyproject_save_files %pypi_name
to
%pyproject_save_files %pypi_name -L

and for the files section have

%files -n python3-%{pypi_name} -f %{pyproject_files}
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE

See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_convenien...

Future versions will allow specifying license file in pyproject.toml:
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/guides/writing-pyproject-toml/
but it is not supported yet.

The above will result in a duplicate license file, but it should be possible to
remove in future.

b) Tests in upstream repository require network access, so cannot be run.  May
want
to use source from upstream rather than PyPI in case test suite enables running
of some
tests that do not need network access.

c) Approved. Please make change (a) before import. Change (b) is optional.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Thanks! I've fixed a. b. would require a tagged release, which they don't yet
provide but soon will.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RELEASE_PENDING

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions  ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyforgejo

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RELEASE_PENDING             |MODIFIED

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc40) has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc41) has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 *`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
        Last Closed|                            |2024-11-01 03:42:42

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-0cc4728190 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc41) has been pushed to the
Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 2268288] Review Request: python-pyforgejo - A client library for accessing the Forgejo API

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268288

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-dfbdf33d93 (python-pyforgejo-1.0.2-2.fc40) has been pushed to the
Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.