Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6345539
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235059-python-debian-inspector/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06345539-python-debian-inspector/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 will take this review.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file mit.LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

  Also, note the SPDX-License-Identifier in README.rst and the accompanying
  explanation.  The License field should be:

  Apache-2.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND MIT

  The files bsd-new.LICENSE and mit.LICENSE should be included in %license.

  Also note the files src/debian_inspector/*.{ABOUT,LICENSE}, which are
  installed into %{python3_sitelib}, but shouldn't be.

- I question the value of including CODE_OF_CONDUCT.rst as %doc

- Remove -t from %pyproject_buildrequires.  This package does not test with tox.

===== 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.
[!]: 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 BSD 3-Clause License
     Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* MIT License", "GNU General Public License, Version 3 Apache
     License 2.0", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "BSD
     2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views
     sentence", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
     later", "MIT License GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3 GNU
     Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1 GNU General Public License,
     Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3",
     "Public domain BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause
     License", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU Library General Public License,
     Version 2.0 GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright*
     GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Public domain MIT License BSD
     3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later", "*No copyright* Public domain MIT License", "Public domain
     MIT License BSD 3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2 GNU Affero General Public License v3.0",
     "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0", "Public
     domain", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Public domain
     BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License GNU
     Library General Public License, Version 2.0 GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "*No copyright* Public domain MIT License BSD
     3-Clause License BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0
     or later". 85 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2235059-python-debian-
     inspector/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 9434 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[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

===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-debian-inspector-31.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-debian-inspector-doc-31.0.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-debian-inspector-31.0.0-1.fc40.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/tmp69g1zytb')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 2

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nexB/debian-inspector/archive/v31.0.0/debian-inspector-31.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0f32d28ec3d4c49e6212e2d1372e1d8bebf36d17b868ea1cfe2ae0e39a7ff980
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0f32d28ec3d4c49e6212e2d1372e1d8bebf36d17b868ea1cfe2ae0e39a7ff980


Requires
--------
python3-debian-inspector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ((python3.12dist(attrs) < 20.1 or python3.12dist(attrs) > 20.1) with python3.12dist(attrs) >= 19.2)
    python(abi)
    python3.12dist(chardet)

python-debian-inspector-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-debian-inspector:
    python-debian-inspector
    python3-debian-inspector
    python3.12-debian-inspector
    python3.12dist(debian-inspector)
    python3dist(debian-inspector)

python-debian-inspector-doc:
    python-debian-inspector-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2235059 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-eclipseo
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Ruby, fonts, R, PHP, C/C++, Perl
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you!

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-debian-inspector.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-debian-inspector-31.0.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6528167
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235059-python-debian-inspector/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06528167-python-debian-inspector/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.

That looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

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

Thank you for the review

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/57425

FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2

FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9

FEDORA-2023-05a3111527 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-05a3111527

FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-05a3111527 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-05a3111527 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-05a3111527

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-97a0675aa2 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-f7fc7627d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-05a3111527 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.