[Bug 2326183] New: Review Request: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages - A schema package for koji-fedoramessaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
Bug ID: 2326183 Summary: Review Request: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages - A schema package for koji-fedoramessaging Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattia.verga@proton.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fe... SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fe... Description: A schema package for koji-fedoramessaging, the fedora-messaging plugin for Koji. Fedora Account System Username: mattia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/fedora-i | |nfra/%{srcname}
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8257381 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packag...
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=2326183
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Trivial Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125843930
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging- messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/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. [x]: 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: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.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/tmpd1jw37y_')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 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
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/k/koji_fedoramessaging_messag... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d91b63d49001438e6eef2c5d0b53c7b963dc8e5043e2390961b5cda11b63e05f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d91b63d49001438e6eef2c5d0b53c7b963dc8e5043e2390961b5cda11b63e05f
Requires -------- python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging)
Provides -------- python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3.13-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3.13dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages) python3dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec 2024-11-14 20:45:27.897309961 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm-unpacked/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec 2024-11-09 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global srcname koji-fedoramessaging-messages %global modname koji_fedoramessaging_messages @@ -54,3 +64,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Sat Nov 09 2024 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.2.5-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2326183 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, fonts, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Licensing seems like it should be GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only if so, possibly the GPL-3.0 text should be added to the repository, if not all files should have the GPL-2.0 text.
GNU General Public License v2.0 or later ---------------------------------------- python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/base.py
GNU General Public License, Version 2 ------------------------------------- python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/LICENSE
GNU General Public License, Version 3 ------------------------------------- python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/__init__.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/build.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/package.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/repo.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/rpm.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/tag.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/koji_fedoramessaging_messages/task.py python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-build/koji_fedoramessaging_messages-1.2.5/tests/test_base.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Licensing issue reported upstream. Lets wait for info, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Updated sources with latest commit from upstream.
Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fe... SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/python-koji-fe...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2060208 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2060208&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8257381 to 8323979
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8323979 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packag...
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=2326183
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
===== 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 General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging- messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging- messages/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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.fc42.noarch.rpm
python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.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/tmp84s_y87k')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 3.1 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
python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/fedora-infra/koji-fedoramessaging-messages/archive/2220a1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 78db3c326a266e7659d3a396c728ffb7c70f96ed3b9d6465bf1a01eb5c11cc3a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 78db3c326a266e7659d3a396c728ffb7c70f96ed3b9d6465bf1a01eb5c11cc3a
Requires -------- python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(fedora-messaging)
Provides -------- python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages: python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3.13-koji-fedoramessaging-messages python3.13dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages) python3dist(koji-fedoramessaging-messages)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec 2024-11-28 20:30:11.102156842 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/2326183-python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages/srpm-unpacked/python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages.spec 2024-11-28 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl https://github.com/fedora-infra/koji-fedoramessaging-messages %global commit 2220a1e39d7ab0fcb48fc0fbd9ff614b6e81bf80 @@ -58,3 +68,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Nov 28 2024 John Doe packager@example.com - 1.2.5-1 +- Uncommitted changes +## END: Generated by rpmautospec
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2326183 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Approved b) If time allows, review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2329377 would be appreciated.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 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-koji-fedoramessaging-messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-19901a6376 (python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-19901a6376
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2326183
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-01 11:54:21
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-19901a6376 (python-koji-fedoramessaging-messages-1.2.5-1.20241128git2220a1e.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