Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877658
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257548-python-zlib-ng/srpm-builds/06877658/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.

Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-zlib-ng.spec
SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-zlib-ng-0.4.0-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6877690
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2257548-python-zlib-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06877690-python-zlib-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
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.

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

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

Notes
=====

Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

=> Standard location for Cython packages

Package is APPROVED! The odd characters mentioned below can be dealt with on import (or later).

Issues
======

[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

=> The bullets in common_description and the ellipsis (...) in the comment in %check are not well displayed when viewing the spec file in my browser. I'm not sure if that's really an issue. But it may not play nicely when the description is displayed on the dist-git repo page.


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 15736 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-zlib-ng
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-zlib-ng-0.4.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          python-zlib-ng-debugsource-0.4.0-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          python-zlib-ng-0.4.0-1.fc38.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/tmpx21se7fc')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python-zlib-ng-debugsource".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-zlib-ng".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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: 2

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



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
python3-zlib-ng: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/zlib_ng/zlib_ng.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pycompression/python-zlib-ng/archive/v0.4.0/python-zlib-ng-0.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a4eaf5fe014a265b564999c92380e854e620436ec7b9017c497509bbf4befa9a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a4eaf5fe014a265b564999c92380e854e620436ec7b9017c497509bbf4befa9a


Requires
--------
python3-zlib-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libz-ng.so.2()(64bit)
    libz-ng.so.2(ZLIB_NG_2.0.0)(64bit)
    python(abi)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

python-zlib-ng-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-zlib-ng:
    python-zlib-ng
    python3-zlib-ng
    python3-zlib-ng(x86-64)
    python3.11-zlib-ng
    python3.11dist(zlib-ng)
    python3dist(zlib-ng)

python-zlib-ng-debugsource:
    python-zlib-ng-debugsource
    python-zlib-ng-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-zlib-ng --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Ocaml, PHP, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Sandro from comment #4)
> Package is APPROVED! The odd characters mentioned below can be dealt with on
> import (or later).

> => The bullets in common_description and the ellipsis (...) in the comment in %check are not well displayed when viewing the spec file in my browser. I'm not sure if that's really an issue. But it may not play nicely when the description is displayed on the dist-git repo page.

Are you talking about the https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-zlib-ng.spec link? It works in my browser (Firefox on Fedora 39), and it looks like it’s served with "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8", so I would have expected it to be OK everywhere.

I’m curious to explore what you’re seeing, but I feel like in Fedora in 2024 we ought to be able to use common Unicode characters rather than restricting ourselves to ASCII.

Here’s a dist-git link to a project that uses bullet characters in the main description: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-reretry

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

https://release-monitoring.org/project/323884/

FEDORA-2024-ef69c3c9d8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ef69c3c9d8

FEDORA-2024-ef69c3c9d8 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #5)
> Thank you for the review!
> 
> (In reply to Sandro from comment #4)
> > Package is APPROVED! The odd characters mentioned below can be dealt with on
> > import (or later).
> 
> > => The bullets in common_description and the ellipsis (...) in the comment in %check are not well displayed when viewing the spec file in my browser. I'm not sure if that's really an issue. But it may not play nicely when the description is displayed on the dist-git repo page.
> 
> Are you talking about the https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-zlib-ng.spec
> link? It works in my browser (Firefox on Fedora 39), and it looks like it’s
> served with "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8", so I would have
> expected it to be OK everywhere.

Yes, I was looking at that file in my browser during the review. However, I just opened it again and it looks okay now and the same as viewing it in vim in terminal.
 
> I’m curious to explore what you’re seeing, but I feel like in Fedora in 2024
> we ought to be able to use common Unicode characters rather than restricting
> ourselves to ASCII.

Absolutely. And I know full well that Unicode works. I'm using it `python-plotnine`'s description (and some other packages):

https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-plotnine/python3-plotnine/

> Here’s a dist-git link to a project that uses bullet characters in the main
> description: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-reretry

All good. Just a glitch in my browser I suppose.

FEDORA-2024-15b3d70c9e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-15b3d70c9e

(In reply to Sandro from comment #10)
> Yes, I was looking at that file in my browser during the review. However, I
> just opened it again and it looks okay now and the same as viewing it in vim
> in terminal.

I blame gremlins, or possibly imps (👿 U+1F47F IMP).

FEDORA-2024-d314ba001d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d314ba001d

FEDORA-2024-15b3d70c9e 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-2024-15b3d70c9e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-15b3d70c9e

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

FEDORA-2024-d314ba001d 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-2024-d314ba001d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d314ba001d

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

(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #12)
> (In reply to Sandro from comment #10)
> > Yes, I was looking at that file in my browser during the review. However, I
> > just opened it again and it looks okay now and the same as viewing it in vim
> > in terminal.
> 
> I blame gremlins, or possibly imps (👿 U+1F47F IMP).

Turns out it was neither:

https://github.com/fedora-copr/copr/issues/3077

I guess I looked at the spec file in Copr during review and the version hosted on fp.o the second time around.

FEDORA-2024-15b3d70c9e has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-d314ba001d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.