[Bug 1719959] New: Review Request: python-pykeepass - library to interact with keepass databases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Bug ID: 1719959 Summary: Review Request: python-pykeepass - library to interact with keepass databases Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: paulcarroty@riseup.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/paulcarroty/5cceff6b0abf8b55c73c9e5cb5145213#file-py... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/paulcarroty/gnome-passwordsa... Description: Python library to interact with keepass databases Fedora Account System Username: paulcarroty
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You need to include changelog entries
-
Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%%7Bpypi_name%7D/%%7Bpypi_n...
→
Source0: %{pypi_source}
- License is invalid, it should be:
License: GPLv3
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", "Expat License". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pykeepass/review-python- pykeepass/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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 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. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-pykeepass-3.0.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python-pykeepass-3.0.3-1.fc31.src.rpm python3-pykeepass.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keepass -> keep ass, keep-ass, keepsake python3-pykeepass.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python3-pykeepass.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL3 python-pykeepass.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) keepass -> keep ass, keep-ass, keepsake python-pykeepass.src: E: no-changelogname-tag python-pykeepass.src: W: invalid-license GPL3 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
--- Comment #2 from Pavlo Rudyi paulcarroty@riseup.net --- https://gist.github.com/paulcarroty/5cceff6b0abf8b55c73c9e5cb5145213#file-py...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Your changelog entry must include Version-Release info:
* Fri Jun 14 2019 Pavlo Rudyi paulcarroty@fedoraproject.org - 3.0.3-1
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
--- Comment #4 from Pavlo Rudyi paulcarroty@riseup.net --- Done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Pavlo Rudyi paulcarroty@riseup.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Refreshing flag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pykeepass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1750590 CC| |ego.cordatus@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com --- *** Bug 1750580 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750590 [Bug 1750590] Review Request: password-safe - Password manager for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719959
Artem ego.cordatus@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2020-01-19 12:55:39
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com