* Package abides by the Fedora Review Guidelines
* Package builds and installs successfully (See notes below)
* License is accurate and is allowed in Fedora
* rpmlint shows no important errors (Only some erroneous spelling-error errors that are inaccurate)

NOTES: The %tests do come out with a warning, seems one of the tests may be wrongly wired? But again, not a concern, just a note:

=============================== warnings summary ===============================
test/test_public_servers.py:175
  /builddir/build/BUILD/ftputil-5.1.0/test/test_public_servers.py:175: PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.slow_test - is this a typo?  You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/mark.html
    @pytest.mark.slow_test
-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html


PACKAGE APPROVED

For reference, fedora-review output:

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



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

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



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

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "Academic Free License v2.1 and/or BSD 3-Clause License",
     "Unknown or generated", "Academic Free License v2.1". 38 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/farchord/Documents/fedora/python-ftputil/2260856-python-
     ftputil/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 1540 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
     Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: %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-ftputil-5.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          python-ftputil-5.1.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkjetyx26')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-ftputil.src: E: spelling-error ('os', '%description -l en_US os -> OS, och, so')
python-ftputil.src: E: spelling-error ('shutil', '%description -l en_US shutil -> shutting')
python-ftputil.src: E: spelling-error ('timezones', '%description -l en_US timezones -> timezone, time zones, time-zones')
python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('os', '%description -l en_US os -> OS, och, so')
python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shutil', '%description -l en_US shutil -> shutting')
python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('timezones', '%description -l en_US timezones -> timezone, time zones, time-zones')
============================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.4 s =============================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('os', '%description -l en_US os -> OS, och, so')
python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('shutil', '%description -l en_US shutil -> shutting')
python3-ftputil.noarch: E: spelling-error ('timezones', '%description -l en_US timezones -> timezone, time zones, time-zones')
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/ftputil/ftputil-5.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e9e62d3fd307ef9c52e43b33fd92759fc94c04d8b5178f85f641b183906d4353
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9e62d3fd307ef9c52e43b33fd92759fc94c04d8b5178f85f641b183906d4353


Requires
--------
python3-ftputil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ftp
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-ftputil:
    bundled(python3dist(lrucache))
    python-ftputil
    python3-ftputil
    python3.12-ftputil
    python3.12dist(ftputil)
    python3dist(ftputil)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2260856
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, C/C++, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Steve Cossette from comment #1)
> 
> NOTES: The %tests do come out with a warning, seems one of the tests may be
> wrongly wired? But again, not a concern, just a note:
> 
> =============================== warnings summary
> ===============================
> test/test_public_servers.py:175
>   /builddir/build/BUILD/ftputil-5.1.0/test/test_public_servers.py:175:
> PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.slow_test - is this a typo? 
> You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details, see
> https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/mark.html
>     @pytest.mark.slow_test
> -- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/how-to/capture-warnings.html

Good eye. This happens because the mark is defined in tox.ini,

  https://git.sr.ht/~sschwarzer/ftputil/tree/v5.0.4/item/tox.ini#L9

but tox.ini isn’t included in the PyPI sdist that I use as the source archive.

I decided it wasn’t important enough to do anything about it, but I suppose I could ask upstream to include tox.ini in the sdist, which would make the warning disappear and would make it easy to generate the BuildRequires for testing.

https://todo.sr.ht/~sschwarzer/ftputil/159

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

https://release-monitoring.org/project/371165/

FEDORA-2024-b65ea5a292 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-b65ea5a292

FEDORA-2024-b65ea5a292 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-92dc57ba87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-92dc57ba87

FEDORA-2024-630e19a0c7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-630e19a0c7

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-076f433ced has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-076f433ced

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-076f433ced has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-076f433ced

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

FEDORA-2024-630e19a0c7 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-2024-630e19a0c7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-630e19a0c7

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

FEDORA-2024-92dc57ba87 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-2024-92dc57ba87 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-92dc57ba87

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

FEDORA-2024-92dc57ba87 (python-ftputil-5.1.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2024-076f433ced (python-ftputil-5.1.0-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-630e19a0c7 (python-ftputil-5.1.0-1.fc38) has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.