Please note: Vanessa is a new packager and needs a sponsor :)

updated spec/srpm

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.src.rpm

changes
Release = %autorelease
%changelog = %autochangelog

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec

Package Review
==============
  Looks great

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
========
- Changelog should be changed to * Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1 at gmail.com> - 0.9.4-1 for python-glymur


===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
     Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ope/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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:
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm
python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
rpmlint srpm-unpacked/*.spec results/*.rpm
python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1


Requires
--------
python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(lxml)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-glymur:
    python-glymur
    python3-glymur
    python3.10-glymur
    python3.10dist(glymur)
    python3dist(glymur)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, Perl, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Adeleye Opeyemi from comment #3)
> Package Review
> ==============
>   Looks great
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ========
> - Changelog should be changed to * Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher
> <vanessaigwe1 at gmail.com> - 0.9.4-1 for python-glymur
> 
> 
> ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
>      Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/ope/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [-]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: 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.
> [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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [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]: 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:
> [x]: 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.
> [-]: 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.
> [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [-]: 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.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
>           python-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm
> python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> rpmlint srpm-unpacked/*.spec results/*.rpm
> python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.
> gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /usr/bin/python3
>     python(abi)
>     python3.10dist(lxml)
>     python3.10dist(numpy)
>     python3.10dist(setuptools)
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> python3-glymur:
>     python-glymur
>     python3-glymur
>     python3.10-glymur
>     python3.10dist(glymur)
>     python3dist(glymur)
> 
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
> Disabled plugins: Java, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++,
> Perl, R
> Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you for the review @adebola786 

I have made updates to the changelog following this guide
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec

The updated spec/srpm are above in the comments

Nice, looks great.

This Package looks good

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated




===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
     Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/oluyosola/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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:
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[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:
[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-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-glymur-0.9.4-1.fc36.src.rpm
python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1


Requires
--------
python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(lxml)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-glymur:
    python-glymur
    python3-glymur
    python3.10-glymur
    python3.10dist(glymur)
    python3dist(glymur)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, C/C++, SugarActivity, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the preliminary reviews! They are quite helpful.

When performing a preliminary review, please remember to explicitly note that the review is unofficial or preliminary (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/#show_your_expertise_by_commenting_on_other_review_requests).

----

Thanks for submitting this package. I’ll take the official review.

(I am a packager sponsor. I’m not planning to make a sponsorship decision based solely on this package review.)

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  This is fedora-review not understanding rpmautospec. No change is required.

- I think the changelog CHANGES.txt should also be packaged as documentation
  alongside README.md.

  This is a minor issue, and I won’t block approval on it.

- A man page is always desired for a command-line tool
  (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages).

    python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump

  If you’re willing to maintain it (update it if the command-line interface
  changes upstream), I’m happy to contribute a brief man page for jp2dump
  based on its --help output. If you haven’t used the text-based groff_man(7)
  format before, it’s a little obscure and terse, but relatively easy to
  modify.

  You’re not *required* to add a man page, so if you don’t want to do this then
  just let me know and I will approve the package as-is.

Notes (no change required):
===========================

- The %%py3_check_import is primarily designed for cases where you cannot run
  the upstream test suite—perhaps because it does not exist, it requires
  unpackaged or unpackageable dependencies, or it downloads data from the
  Internet and that data cannot easily be included as an additional Source.

  Since you are running the tests, you may remove

    %py3_check_import glymur

  although there is no harm in leaving it in.

- While there are issues with Sphinx-generated HTML documentation (see
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555), packaging a PDF version
  is probably OK. Let me know if you want to try to package the documentation
  this way; I have quite a few examples I can point to. I’m happy to send a PR
  to add it once the package is in Rawhide—again, if you want to go this way.

  You are not required to package the Sphinx documentation, and leaving it out
  is also a reasonable choice.

===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
     Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt

     CC0-licensed files in ci/ are not installed and do not contribute to the
     build.

[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.
[x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.

       (based on tests passing)

[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.
[-]: 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.
[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:
[x]: 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)

     Differences appear due to rpmautospec only.

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.src.rpm
python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1


Requires
--------
python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(lxml)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-glymur:
    python-glymur
    python3-glymur
    python3.10-glymur
    python3.10dist(glymur)
    python3dist(glymur)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/python-glymur.spec	2021-10-27 15:40:48.150320275 -0400
+++ /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-unpacked/python-glymur.spec	2021-10-25 12:58:54.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 6;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-glymur
 Version:        0.9.4
@@ -55,3 +64,19 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ No newline at end of file
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-6
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-5
+- updated spec file
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-4
+- fresh mockbuild for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-3
+- sending for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-2
+- rpm package created successfully
+
+* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-1
+- building process ...


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, Java, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Dist tag is present.
> 
>   This is fedora-review not understanding rpmautospec. No change is required.
> 
> - I think the changelog CHANGES.txt should also be packaged as documentation
>   alongside README.md.
> 
>   This is a minor issue, and I won’t block approval on it.
> 
> - A man page is always desired for a command-line tool
>   (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages).
> 
>     python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
> 
>   If you’re willing to maintain it (update it if the command-line interface
>   changes upstream), I’m happy to contribute a brief man page for jp2dump
>   based on its --help output. If you haven’t used the text-based groff_man(7)
>   format before, it’s a little obscure and terse, but relatively easy to
>   modify.
> 
>   You’re not *required* to add a man page, so if you don’t want to do this
> then
>   just let me know and I will approve the package as-is.
> 
> Notes (no change required):
> ===========================
> 
> - The %%py3_check_import is primarily designed for cases where you cannot run
>   the upstream test suite—perhaps because it does not exist, it requires
>   unpackaged or unpackageable dependencies, or it downloads data from the
>   Internet and that data cannot easily be included as an additional Source.
> 
>   Since you are running the tests, you may remove
> 
>     %py3_check_import glymur
> 
>   although there is no harm in leaving it in.
> 
> - While there are issues with Sphinx-generated HTML documentation (see
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555), packaging a PDF
> version
>   is probably OK. Let me know if you want to try to package the documentation
>   this way; I have quite a few examples I can point to. I’m happy to send a
> PR
>   to add it once the package is in Rawhide—again, if you want to go this way.
> 
>   You are not required to package the Sphinx documentation, and leaving it
> out
>   is also a reasonable choice.
> 
> ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
>      Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt
> 
>      CC0-licensed files in ci/ are not installed and do not contribute to the
>      build.
> 
> [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.
> [x]: 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 10240 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [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]: 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]: 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).
> [x]: Package functions as described.
> 
>        (based on tests passing)
> 
> [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.
> [-]: 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.
> [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:
> [x]: 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)
> 
>      Differences appear due to rpmautospec only.
> 
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.noarch.rpm
>           python-glymur-0.9.4-6.fc36.src.rpm
> python3-glymur.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jp2dump
> python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> Cannot parse rpmlint output:
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.
> gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /usr/bin/python3
>     python(abi)
>     python3.10dist(lxml)
>     python3.10dist(numpy)
>     python3.10dist(setuptools)
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> python3-glymur:
>     python-glymur
>     python3-glymur
>     python3.10-glymur
>     python3.10dist(glymur)
>     python3dist(glymur)
> 
> 
> 
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
> ---------------------------------
> --- /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/python-glymur.spec	2021-10-27
> 15:40:48.150320275 -0400
> +++ /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-unpacked/python-glymur.spec
> 2021-10-25 12:58:54.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
> +## START: Set by rpmautospec
> +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
> +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
> +    release_number = 6;
> +    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
> +    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
> +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
> +## END: Set by rpmautospec
> +
>  Name:           python-glymur
>  Version:        0.9.4
> @@ -55,3 +64,19 @@
>  
>  %changelog
> -%autochangelog
> \ No newline at end of file
> +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-6
> +- Uncommitted changes
> +
> +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-5
> +- updated spec file
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-4
> +- fresh mockbuild for review
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-3
> +- sending for review
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-2
> +- rpm package created successfully
> +
> +* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-1
> +- building process ...
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
> Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, C/C++,
> Java, R
> Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you very much for the review @code 
I would love to create the man page and PDF documentation. Though I'm not familiar with how to go about this, I am very much willing to learn.
I will also add the CHANGES.txt to the package documentation as suggested in the review 
From your explanation of the %py3_check_import glymurI bit, I have a better understanding of its use case and I will remove it from the spec file as it isn't relevant.

Thank you very much :))

updated spec/srpm

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur-0.9.4-7.fc36.src.rpm

changes
- added CHANGES.txt to docs
- removed %py3_check_import glymurI bit

Created attachment 1838179 [details]
Simple man page

Here’s how I wrote a man page:

First, I got the --help output. Either:

> $ curl -O https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur-0.9.4-7.fc36.src.rpm
> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --rebuild python-glymur-0.9.4-7.fc36.src.rpm
> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -i /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/python3-glymur-0.9.4-7.fc36.noarch.rpm
> $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --chroot -- jp2dump --help | tee jp2dump.txt

(The -- in the last command tells mock to stop parsing options, so that --help is treated as part of the command to run in the chroot rather than as an option to mock. In this case I could have quoted 'jp2dump --help' instead.)

Or:

> $ python3 -m venv _e, w
> $ . _e/bin/activate
> (_e) $ pip install glymur
> (_e) $ glymur --help | tee jp2dump.txt
> (_e) $ deactivate
> $ rm -rf _e

Now, I translate manually to groff_man(7) format (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/groff_man.7.html, or “man groff_man”). Sometimes you’ll also see groff_mdoc(7) format, which has semantic macros that let you write the man page at a higher level. This is a nice idea, but the tradeoff is that the macro language is much larger than groff, so I find the learning curve for understanding and working with these man pages is higher, and it’s (again, in my opinion) harder to handle situations that weren’t foreseen in the design of the macros. I prefer the simpler groff format even if it requires more manual formatting. See also groff_man_style(7) (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/groff_man_style.7.html) and also man-pages(7) (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/man-pages.7.html), which describes the conventional structure of man pages.

The man page starts with a title heading macro:

> .TH title section [footer-middle] [footer-inside] [header-middle]

In this case, we want section 1 for user commands, so a reasonable first line of our “jp2dump.1” looks like:

> .TH JP2DUMP "1" "October 2021" "" "User Commands"

Now we need a NAME section with the command name and a very short description. After consulting the --help output

> usage: jp2dump [-h] [-x] [-s] [-c LEVEL] filename
> 
> Print JPEG2000 metadata.

we can write

> .SH NAME
> .B jp2dump
> \(en print JPEG2000 metadata

I like having an em dash instead of a hyphen-minus, and having a bold command name. However, this would have been fine too:

> .SH NAME
> jp2dump \- print JPEG2000 metadata

The difference between - and \- is that the latter is non-breaking (it is not used as a breakpoint in automatic line wrapping).

Now we need a SYNOPSIS. That starts like:

> .SH SYNOPSIS
> .B jp2dump
> .RB [ \-h ]

The last line is using an alternating format macro. Tokens alternate between plain (”Roman”) and bold formats, and whitespace in the line is collapsed, so we would have to backslash-escape any actual spaces. (As with the hyphen-minus, that would also keeps the space from being used for line breaking.) It’s also possible to use inline formatting directives, which would look like:

> [\fB\-h\fR]

We could also mix the two formatting approaches.

Now we write the rest of the options in the synopsis:

> .RB [ \-c ]
> .RB [ \-s ]
> .RB [ \-c\ \fILEVEL ]
> .I filename

Normally a DESCRIPTION section would come next, but we don’t have anything else to say about the command, so we move straight on to OPTIONS. Here I’ve chosen to mirror the structure of the help output using subsections (.SS). We use a tagged paragraph (.TP) for each option.

> .SH OPTIONS
> .SS "POSITIONAL ARGUMENTS"
> .TP
> .I filename
> .SS "OPTIONAL ARGUMENTS"
> .TP
> .BR \-h ,\  \-\-help
> show a help message and exit
> .TP
> .BR \-x ,\  \-\-noxml
> suppress xml (default:
> .BR False )  
> .TP
> .BR \-s ,\  \-\-short
> only print box id, offset, and length (default: 
> .BR False )  
> .TP
> .BR \-c\ \fILEVEL ,\  \-\-codestream\ \fILEVEL
> Level of codestream information. 
> .B 0
> suppresses all details,
> .B 1
> prints the main header, 
> .B 2 
> prints the full codestream.
> (default:
> .BR 1 )

This is just more of the same, copying the --help output nearly verbatim, with added macro directives for structure and legibility. I’ve followed common convention by making placeholder names italic (underlined in a terminal) and literal options and parameter values bold.

One quirk of man pages is that, for correct formatting, there should always be a line break after the period at the end of any sentence. This shows up in the description for -c/--codestream.

Finally, let’s cross-reference the similar command offered by OpenJPEG:

> .SH "SEE ALSO"
> .BR j2k_dump (1)

I can test my man page with

> man ./jp2dump.1

Looks good!

-----

To add the man page to the package, add it as an additional source:

> # Written by hand for Fedora in groff_man(7) format based on --help output
> Source1:        jp2dump.1

You’ll have to commit it to the dist-git repository.

Then you can add to %prep:

> cp -p '%{SOURCE1}' .

to %install:

> install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' -d -p -m 0644 jp2dump.1

and to %files:

> %{_mandir}/man1/jp2dump.1*

Note the wildcard, which allows the man page compression format to change from gz to something else in the future.

If you liked, I suppose you could drop the “cp” in %prep and install directly from the source file:

> install -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' -d -p -m 0644 '%{SOURCE1}'

-----

There is also a program “help2man” that can be used to automatically generate man pages from --help output during the RPM build. Its output is sometimes usable, although—where feasible—a hand-written man page is almost always nicer.

There’s something I missed in the initial review. This library loads “libopenjp2” at runtime using ctypes.CDLL, so it needs it as a dependency. It’s perfectly happy to open the versioned shared object (e.g. libopenjp2.so.7), so you can depend on openjpeg2 rather than openjpeg2-devel.

I guess the tests are working because one of your BuildRequires already has openjpeg2 as a transitive dependency. However, you should make the build-time dependency explicit, and also add the runtime dependency:

> BuildRequires:  openjpeg2

> # libopenjp2 is loaded via ctypes
> Requires:       openjpeg2

-----

I don’t have time to talk through the PDF documentation right now, but I’m happy to do so a little later. It’s by no means needed for approval! However, if you’re interested in trying it by example, you can take a look at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-socketio/blob/rawhide/f/python-socketio.spec.

Thank you so much @code 

- I will include the man page 
- Go through the PDF documentation link you shared 
- and include the openjpeg2 runtime dependency 

:))

updated spec/srpm

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur-0.9.4-8.fc36.src.rpm

changes
- Added man-page to package
- Added openjpeg2 runtime dependency

@code I didn't include the PDF docs hoping I could include it at a later time if it won't be a block for the package approval

> @code I didn't include the PDF docs hoping I could include it at a later time if it won't be a block for the package approval

Of course—building and installing the Sphinx documentation is a choice, not a requirement.

Thanks for your careful work on updating this spec file! I see only one small thing, that needs to be adjusted before I can approve the package.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)

- The “Requires: openjpeg2” should be on the python3-glymur subpackage. Note
  that a Requires always applies to a particular binary RPM. Different
  subpackage typically have different Requires (both manual and generated).

  Because the base package python-glymur has no %files section and does not
  build a binary RPM, putting the Requires here has no effect. This is a very
  common mistake.

  (BuildRequires are different; they can be all on the base package, or some on
  different subpackages. It does not really matter where you put them, so it is
  a matter of personal style preference. They all belong to the source RPM.)

- This one is really non-obvious: rpmlint says:

    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog

  You very reasonably mentioned %autorelease, %changelog, and %autochangelog in
  a commit message, but rpmautospec does not escape the percent signs (by
  doubling, e.g. %%autorelease) when creating the changelog. The macros can
  then be expanded, which can cause all kinds of trouble. I think this is a
  significant bug (https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/224), but
  for now it’s important to always manually escape percent characters in commit
  messages when using rpmautospec.

  This doesn’t block approval because the changelogs from your pagure
  repository won’t be carried over to the new dist-git repository after
  approval.

===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
     Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-
     glymur/20211029/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt

     CC0 files in ci/ are not installed, so do not affect the binary package’s
     license.

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     The “Requires: openjpeg2” should be on the python3-glymur package.

[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 2 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

     The “Requires: openjpeg2” should be on the python3-glymur package.

[!]: Package functions as described.

     Needs working openjpeg2 dependency.

[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.
[-]: 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.
[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:
[x]: 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)

     OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-8.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-glymur-0.9.4-8.fc36.src.rpm
python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600
python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1


Requires
--------
python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(lxml)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-glymur:
    python-glymur
    python3-glymur
    python3.10-glymur
    python3.10dist(glymur)
    python3dist(glymur)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211029/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/python-glymur.spec	2021-10-29 14:33:20.569550737 -0400
+++ /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211029/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-unpacked/python-glymur.spec	2021-10-29 08:35:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 8;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-glymur
 Version:        0.9.4
@@ -58,3 +67,25 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ No newline at end of file
+* Fri Oct 29 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-8
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Thu Oct 28 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-7
+- added CHANGES.txt to package docs
+
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-6
+- changed Release = %autorelease and %changelog = %autochangelog
+
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-5
+- updated spec file
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-4
+- fresh mockbuild for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-3
+- sending for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-2
+- rpm package created successfully
+
+* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-1
+- building process ...


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, R, PHP, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

@code Thank you so much for the review and corrections I made some changes

updated spec/srpm

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur.spec
SRPM URL: https://pagure.io/python-glymur/raw/main/f/python-glymur-0.9.4-9.fc36.src.rpm

changes
- Added openjpeg2 to python3-glymur subpackage and removed from python-glymur base package as it does not build a binary RPM

Thanks for working through the details. This package is approved. Full re-review is below.

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present.

  (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)

- This one is really non-obvious: rpmlint says:

    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
    python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog

  You very reasonably mentioned %autorelease, %changelog, and %autochangelog in
  a commit message, but rpmautospec does not escape the percent signs (by
  doubling, e.g. %%autorelease) when creating the changelog. The macros can
  then be expanded, which can cause all kinds of trouble. I think this is a
  significant bug (https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/224), but
  for now it’s important to always manually escape percent characters in commit
  messages when using rpmautospec.

  This doesn’t block approval because the changelogs from your pagure
  repository won’t be carried over to the new dist-git repository after
  approval.

===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
     Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-
     glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt

     CC0 files in ci/ are not installed, so do not affect the binary package’s
     license.

[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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]: 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).
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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)

     OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-9.fc36.noarch.rpm
          python-glymur-0.9.4-9.fc36.src.rpm
python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600
python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1


Requires
--------
python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    openjpeg2
    python(abi)
    python3.10dist(lxml)
    python3.10dist(numpy)
    python3.10dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-glymur:
    python-glymur
    python3-glymur
    python3.10-glymur
    python3.10dist(glymur)
    python3dist(glymur)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/python-glymur.spec	2021-11-01 13:41:12.851465600 -0400
+++ /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-unpacked/python-glymur.spec	2021-11-01 07:39:51.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 9;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           python-glymur
 Version:        0.9.4
@@ -58,3 +67,28 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
\ No newline at end of file
+* Mon Nov 01 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-9
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Fri Oct 29 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-8
+- Added man-page to package
+
+* Thu Oct 28 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-7
+- added CHANGES.txt to package docs
+
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-6
+- changed Release = %autorelease and %changelog = %autochangelog
+
+* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-5
+- updated spec file
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-4
+- fresh mockbuild for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-3
+- sending for review
+
+* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-2
+- rpm package created successfully
+
+* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-1
+- building process ...


Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Haskell, fonts, PHP, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #17)
> Thanks for working through the details. This package is approved. Full
> re-review is below.
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - Dist tag is present.
> 
>   (OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec)
> 
> - This one is really non-obvious: rpmlint says:
> 
>     python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
>     python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
>     python-glymur.src:76: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
> 
>   You very reasonably mentioned %autorelease, %changelog, and %autochangelog
> in
>   a commit message, but rpmautospec does not escape the percent signs (by
>   doubling, e.g. %%autorelease) when creating the changelog. The macros can
>   then be expanded, which can cause all kinds of trouble. I think this is a
>   significant bug (https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec/issue/224), but
>   for now it’s important to always manually escape percent characters in
> commit
>   messages when using rpmautospec.
> 
>   This doesn’t block approval because the changelogs from your pagure
>   repository won’t be carried over to the new dist-git repository after
>   approval.
> 
> ===== 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", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public
>      Domain Dedication". 103 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>      licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2016693-python-
>      glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/licensecheck.txt
> 
>      CC0 files in ci/ are not installed, so do not affect the binary
> package’s
>      license.
> 
> [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.
> [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [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]: 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]: 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).
> [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.
> [-]: 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.
> [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)
> 
>      OK; fedora-review does not understand rpmautospec
> 
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: python3-glymur-0.9.4-9.fc36.noarch.rpm
>           python-glymur-0.9.4-9.fc36.src.rpm
> python-glymur.src: W: strange-permission python-glymur.spec 600
> python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %autorelease
> python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %changelog
> python-glymur.src:79: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> Cannot parse rpmlint output:
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://github.com/quintusdias/glymur/archive/v0.9.4/python-glymur-0.9.4.tar.
> gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
> b7490314c5aebf338facc603f7dde2ec807860bf0ff226df634ee90065a2fcd1
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> python3-glymur (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     /usr/bin/python3
>     openjpeg2
>     python(abi)
>     python3.10dist(lxml)
>     python3.10dist(numpy)
>     python3.10dist(setuptools)
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> python3-glymur:
>     python-glymur
>     python3-glymur
>     python3.10-glymur
>     python3.10dist(glymur)
>     python3dist(glymur)
> 
> 
> 
> Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
> ---------------------------------
> ---
> /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/srpm/
> python-glymur.spec	2021-11-01 13:41:12.851465600 -0400
> +++
> /home/reviewer/2016693-python-glymur/20211101/2016693-python-glymur/srpm-
> unpacked/python-glymur.spec	2021-11-01 07:39:51.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
> +## START: Set by rpmautospec
> +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.5)
> +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
> +    release_number = 9;
> +    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
> +    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
> +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist}
> +## END: Set by rpmautospec
> +
>  Name:           python-glymur
>  Version:        0.9.4
> @@ -58,3 +67,28 @@
>  
>  %changelog
> -%autochangelog
> \ No newline at end of file
> +* Mon Nov 01 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-9
> +- Uncommitted changes
> +
> +* Fri Oct 29 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-8
> +- Added man-page to package
> +
> +* Thu Oct 28 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-7
> +- added CHANGES.txt to package docs
> +
> +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-6
> +- changed Release = %autorelease and %changelog = %autochangelog
> +
> +* Mon Oct 25 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-5
> +- updated spec file
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-4
> +- fresh mockbuild for review
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-3
> +- sending for review
> +
> +* Fri Oct 22 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-2
> +- rpm package created successfully
> +
> +* Thu Oct 21 2021 Vanessa Christopher <vanessaigwe1> 0.9.4-1
> +- building process ...
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2016693
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
> Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Perl, Java, Haskell, fonts, PHP,
> C/C++
> Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you so much @code for patiently walking me through the fixes

Congratulations Vanessa! Well done!

This, along with your reviews, makes me confident that you'll be a good package maintainer at the Fedora community. So I have now sponsored you to the package maintainers team. Welcome!

Please logout and back in to https://src.fedoraproject.org (that syncs the account system with https://src.fedoraproject.org)

Please continue from here:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors/#add_package_to_source_code_management_scm_system_and_set_owner

Cheers,
Ankur

PS: we use needinfos (tagging using @ etc.) to get people's attention. It sends them additional reminders about the bug etc. So we shouldn't use them each time we reply unless we mean to send people reminders.

Thank you so much @sanjay.ankur

Vanessa:

^ see, tagging using @ sets the "needinfo" flag which will send me additional e-mail reminders (to request an urgent response). So, if that's not the intention, you should not set this flag :)

For normal conversations, just use our names :)

Cheers,
Ankur

(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #19)
> Congratulations Vanessa! Well done!
> 
> This, along with your reviews, makes me confident that you'll be a good
> package maintainer at the Fedora community. So I have now sponsored you to
> the package maintainers team. Welcome!

Thanks, Ankur, and congratulations, Vanessa. I’m looking forward to seeing your work in Fedora.

You have an excellent sponsor, but please do feel free to contact me with any questions as well.

(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #21)
> Vanessa:
> 
> ^ see, tagging using @ sets the "needinfo" flag which will send me
> additional e-mail reminders (to request an urgent response). So, if that's
> not the intention, you should not set this flag :)
> 
> For normal conversations, just use our names :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Ankur

ohh sorry about that

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #22)
> (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #19)
> > Congratulations Vanessa! Well done!
> > 
> > This, along with your reviews, makes me confident that you'll be a good
> > package maintainer at the Fedora community. So I have now sponsored you to
> > the package maintainers team. Welcome!
> 
> Thanks, Ankur, and congratulations, Vanessa. I’m looking forward to seeing
> your work in Fedora.
> 
> You have an excellent sponsor, but please do feel free to contact me with
> any questions as well.

Thank you Ben

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-glymur