[Bug 2320189] New: Review-Request: python-kiss-headers - Object-oriented HTTP and IMAP headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Bug ID: 2320189 Summary: Review-Request: python-kiss-headers - Object-oriented HTTP and IMAP headers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/CoBang/fedora-rawh... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/CoBang/fedora-rawh...
description: Python package for HTTP/1.1 style headers. Parse headers to objects. Most advanced available structure for http headers.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- The ticket summary is not in the correct format. Expected:
Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>
Found:
Review-Request: python-kiss-headers - Object-oriented HTTP and IMAP headers
As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].
--- 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=2320189
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2320399
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320399 [Bug 2320399] Review-Request: CoBang - A QR code scanner desktop app for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gwync@protonmail.com CC| |gwync@protonmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gwyn/2320189-python-kiss- headers/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13, /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 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: [x]: 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). [x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== 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 ------- Checking: python3-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.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/tmp6n17oend')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-kiss-headers.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 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-kiss-headers.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 4 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jawah/kiss-headers/archive/2.4.3/kiss-headers-2.4.3.tar.g... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3496e6a697b2d2d052dda96f15bf02ed8d5244b722735b5da01febf93392bf30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3496e6a697b2d2d052dda96f15bf02ed8d5244b722735b5da01febf93392bf30
Requires -------- python3-kiss-headers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-kiss-headers: python-kiss-headers python3-kiss-headers python3.13-kiss-headers python3.13dist(kiss-headers) python3dist(kiss-headers)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2320189 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Java, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Build log indicates pytest not pytest7 is used: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/CoBang/fedora-rawh... Error seems like a bug in Fedora-Review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Agreed. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #5 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-kiss-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de (python-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f (python-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-11-03 02:38:32
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-6c5d3b55de (python-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320189
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-74d64d043f (python-kiss-headers-2.4.3-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com