[Bug 2063000] New: Review Request: python-mnamer - Media file renamer and organizion tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
Bug ID: 2063000 Summary: Review Request: python-mnamer - Media file renamer and organizion tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mnamer/python-mnamer.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-mnamer/python-mnamer-2.5.4-1...
Description: mnamer (media renamer) is an intelligent and highly configurable media organization utility. It parses media filenames for metadata, searches the web to fill in the blanks, and then renames and moves them.
Currently it has integration support with TVDb and TvMaze for television episodes and TMDb and OMDb for movies.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2062999
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062999 [Bug 2062999] Review Request: python-teletype - High-level cross platform Python tty library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000 Bug 2063000 depends on bug 2062999, which changed state.
Bug 2062999 Summary: Review Request: python-teletype - High-level cross platform Python tty library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062999
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jasmin.marwad@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jasmin jasmin.marwad@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jasmin/2063000-python-mnamer/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 31, packages: 1
mnamer.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mnamer/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 mnamer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mnamer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jkwill87/mnamer/archive/2.5.4/mnamer-2.5.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8da5e1c0a6ecaa1fb60f7b472583de6a892e3b1f8cc0264a9c347e409c3dbc3b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8da5e1c0a6ecaa1fb60f7b472583de6a892e3b1f8cc0264a9c347e409c3dbc3b
Requires -------- mnamer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(appdirs) >= 1.4 with python3.11dist(appdirs) < 1.5) (python3.11dist(babelfish) >= 0.6 with python3.11dist(babelfish) < 0.7) (python3.11dist(requests) >= 2 with python3.11dist(requests) < 3) (python3.11dist(requests-cache) >= 0.5 with python3.11dist(requests-cache) < 0.6) /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.11dist(guessit) python3.11dist(teletype) python3.11dist(wheel)
Provides -------- mnamer: mnamer python3.11dist(mnamer) python3dist(mnamer)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2063000 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Ocaml, R, Haskell, fonts, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name's needinfo: Bug 2063000: Review Request: python-mnamer - Media file renamer and organizion tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This one is still good, but the latest version requires updating python-requests-cache first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davide@cavalca.na | |me) | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca davide@cavalca.name --- This one is still good, but the latest version requires updating python-requests-cache first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063000
Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fschwarz@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from Felix Schwarz fschwarz@fedoraproject.org --- Davide, are you still interested in getting this into Fedora? If so, could you please update whatever needs updating (hint: spelling in the summary) so I can review it.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com