https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Bug ID: 2372511 Summary: Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yselkowi@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.s... Description: Provides the SPDX License List as a Python dictionary. (This will be a new dependency of eric.) Fedora Account System Username: yselkowitz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2356888
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2356888 [Bug 2356888] eric-25.6.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://pypi.org/project/sp | |dx-license-list/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9157224 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file INSTALLER 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2093796 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2093796&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9157224 to 9157388
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9157388 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file INSTALLER 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list.spec SRPM URL: https://yselkowitz.fedorapeople.org/python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2093812 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2093812&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9157388 to 9157443
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9157443 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file INSTALLER 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2371712
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2371712 [Bug 2371712] F43FailsToInstall: eric. Python 3.14 rebuild fails: Sorry, you must have Python 3.9.0 or higher, but less 3.14.0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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 INSTALLER 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-spdx- license-list/2372511-python-spdx-license-list/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.14, /usr/lib/python3.14/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. [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: 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 2421 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. [-]: 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: [!]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppollyjkv')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/spdx_license_list/spdx_lice... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc8eed9acdf070deba0e6ac9335d704f0e3338d30895000d911c70e4b7853e5b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc8eed9acdf070deba0e6ac9335d704f0e3338d30895000d911c70e4b7853e5b
Requires -------- python3-spdx-license-list (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-spdx-license-list: python-spdx-license-list python3-spdx-license-list python3.14-spdx-license-list python3.14dist(spdx-license-list) python3dist(spdx-license-list)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-spdx-license-list/2372511-python-spdx-license-list/srpm/python-spdx-license-list.spec 2025-06-24 08:10:05.161563766 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/fedora-packaging/reviews/python-spdx-license-list/2372511-python-spdx-license-list/srpm-unpacked/python-spdx-license-list.spec 2025-06-12 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1) +## 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 pkgname spdx-license-list %global srcname spdx_license_list @@ -52,3 +62,6 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +## START: Generated by rpmautospec +* Thu Jun 12 2025 John Doe packager@example.com - 3.26.0-1 +- 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 2372511 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=134348198 b) $ rpm -qL python3-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/python3-spdx-license-list/LICENSE License file is installed twice, but installation from packaged does not have metadata. This is something that needs to be fixed with poetry: https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/9670 Perhaps add a comment in the spec file to check this on the next update c) Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
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-spdx-license-list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2cb96d78b0 (python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-2cb96d78b0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-06-24 17:14:02
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-2cb96d78b0 (python-spdx-license-list-3.26.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org