This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98973683

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5689830
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2180396-python-linuxdoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05689830-python-linuxdoc/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

I didn’t really want to package this and python-fspath, but if you’re doing it, I’ll probably use them to enable the documentation in mmlib (bug 2178190).

Mostly, the License needs to be SPDX. Details below.

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

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


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

  OK; fedora-review is confused by rpmautospec

- License field must be SPDX

  We can probably safely assume GPL-2.0-only (vs. GPL-2.0-or-later), but I
  asked for clarification in
  https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/issues/26#issuecomment-1477916997.

- Consider actually patching the missing dependencies into the Python metadata.
  I sent a PR upstream:

  # Add Sphinx and docutils to the runtime dependencies
  https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/pull/27

- Man pages are always nice; maybe I’ll send a PR later.

===== 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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2",
     "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2". 8
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/licensecheck.txt

     An SPDX expression is needed.

[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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     (except as noted)

[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]: 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:
[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).
[?]: 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.

     (“smoke test” only)

[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: rpmautospec expansion

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


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-linuxdoc-20221127-2.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-linuxdoc-20221127-2.fc39.src.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts ===============================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpmwtwfyls')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-linuxdoc.src: W: strange-permission python-linuxdoc.spec 600
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-autodoc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-doc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-grepdoc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-lintdoc
================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 s ================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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
checks: 31, packages: 1

python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-autodoc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-doc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-grepdoc
python3-linuxdoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kernel-lintdoc
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/linuxdoc/linuxdoc-20221127.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7c65f3e02cbbfa75ff142c89b70c31a1ca3712a71422a5f879451a7463325bf4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c65f3e02cbbfa75ff142c89b70c31a1ca3712a71422a5f879451a7463325bf4


Requires
--------
python3-linuxdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-docutils
    python3-sphinx
    python3.11dist(fspath)
    python3.11dist(setuptools)



Provides
--------
python3-linuxdoc:
    python-linuxdoc
    python3-linuxdoc
    python3.11-linuxdoc
    python3.11dist(linuxdoc)
    python3dist(linuxdoc)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/srpm/python-linuxdoc.spec	2023-03-21 09:36:50.050346938 -0400
+++ /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/srpm-unpacked/python-linuxdoc.spec	2023-03-20 20:00:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 2;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # upstream does not include a license file at all
 # issue filed: https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/issues/26
@@ -67,3 +77,7 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Tue Mar 21 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 20221127-2
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Mon Jan 30 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 20221127-1
+- init


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2180396 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, R, PHP, C/C++, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Upstream released 20230321 with the fixes we asked for.

Thanks Ben!

Updated spec/srpm:

Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-linuxdoc/python-linuxdoc.spec
SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-linuxdoc/python-linuxdoc-20230321-1.fc39.src.rpm

Changelog:


feat: update as per review comments
    
- update to latest release
- include license file
- use SPDX license
- generate and install man pages

https://pagure.io/python-linuxdoc/c/8e5ddbff950818593f1c55b7f6a13c4a53b46241?branch=main
    

Cheers,
Ankur

Thanks! The package is APPROVED; please remove the stale spec-file comment mentioned below.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Dist tag is present. (OK: fedora-review is confused about rpmautospec)

- Please remove this comment, since it is no longer true:

    # upstream does not include a license file at all
    # issue filed: https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/issues/26

===== 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: "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "GNU Affero General
     Public License v3.0 or later", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2 GNU Affero General Public License v3.0",
     "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0". 7 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/licensecheck.txt

     Any remaining mentions of GPLv2 in the source are clearly oversights in
     the recent relicensing; I filed
     https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/pull/29 “Update license info in
     docstrings” to clean these up.

[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 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).
[?]: 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.

     (import-only smoke test)

[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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-linuxdoc-20230321-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-linuxdoc-20230321-1.fc39.src.rpm
=============================================== rpmlint session starts ===============================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmpyoajif01')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-linuxdoc.src: W: strange-permission python-linuxdoc.spec 600
================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/linuxdoc/linuxdoc-20230321.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 57e084f5dc930a6b58787a5037ed0f4bde85a8bcbef9ceb3efbbe5a2c8dc6e51
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 57e084f5dc930a6b58787a5037ed0f4bde85a8bcbef9ceb3efbbe5a2c8dc6e51


Requires
--------
python3-linuxdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(docutils)
    python3.11dist(fspath)
    python3.11dist(setuptools)
    python3.11dist(sphinx)



Provides
--------
python3-linuxdoc:
    python-linuxdoc
    python3-linuxdoc
    python3.11-linuxdoc
    python3.11dist(linuxdoc)
    python3dist(linuxdoc)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/srpm/python-linuxdoc.spec	2023-03-24 09:20:45.086577273 -0400
+++ /home/reviewer/2180396-python-linuxdoc/srpm-unpacked/python-linuxdoc.spec	2023-03-21 20:00:00.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.5)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 # upstream does not include a license file at all
 # issue filed: https://github.com/return42/linuxdoc/issues/26
@@ -74,3 +84,10 @@
 
 %changelog
-%autochangelog
+* Wed Mar 22 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 20230321-1
+- Uncommitted changes
+
+* Tue Mar 21 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 20221127-2
+- feat: ready for review
+
+* Mon Jan 30 2023 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail) <sanjay.ankur> - 20221127-1
+- init


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2180396
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, C/C++, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Java, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-linuxdoc

FEDORA-2023-860ccc02fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-860ccc02fe

FEDORA-2023-860ccc02fe has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.