[Bug 2372511] New: Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

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: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  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

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Yaakov Selkowitz  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

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Fedora Review Service  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://pypi.org/project/sp
                   |                            |dx-license-list/

--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  ---
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.

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
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...

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Created attachment 2093796
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2093796&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9157224 to 9157388

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service  ---
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.

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
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...

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service  ---
Created attachment 2093812
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2093812&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9157388 to 9157443

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service  ---
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.

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Yaakov Selkowitz  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.

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Benson Muite  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |POST

--- Comment #8 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 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  - 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.

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|POST                        |RELEASE_PENDING

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

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Fedora Update System  changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
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

[Bug 2372511] Review Request: python-spdx-license-list - SPDX License List as a Python dictionary

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2372511

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2025-06-24 17:14:02

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
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.