Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6971459
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2260891-python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06971459-python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/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.

[fedora-review-service-build]

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6971777
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2260891-python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06971777-python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/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.

This appears to have gone out of date. Could you provide an update, please?

It looks like 0.1.2 is still the latest upstream version, but the COPR URLs have expired. Fortunately, the fedorapeople.org outage is over, so:

New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp.spec
New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2-1.fc39.src.rpm

[fedora-review-service-build]

And now review service is broken again. :\

Luckily, that can be worked around ...

Notes
=====

[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc,
     /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/licenses,
     /usr/lib
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr,
     /usr/share/doc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages,
     /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib

=> This appears to be a bug in fedora-review. It's okay, even required, not to own these directories.

=> Package is APPROVED!

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

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



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

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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc,
     /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/licenses,
     /usr/lib
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr,
     /usr/share/doc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages,
     /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib
[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.
[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 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 1004 bytes in 2 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.
[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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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.
[?]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2-1.fc41.noarch.rpm
          python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2-1.fc41.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/tmpqk4kjt5_')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 10 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ 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

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



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/snakemake/snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/archive/v0.1.2/snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2059cf23378190f3dddf0f04af1398d7e53b51312d9c9da39ce618178e53cf41
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2059cf23378190f3dddf0f04af1398d7e53b51312d9c9da39ce618178e53cf41


Requires
--------
python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.12dist(ftputil) < 6~~ with python3.12dist(ftputil) >= 5.0.4)
    (python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-common) < 2~~ with python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-common) >= 1.15.1)
    (python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-storage-plugins) < 4~~ with python3.12dist(snakemake-interface-storage-plugins) >= 3)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp:
    python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp
    python3-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp
    python3.12-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp
    python3.12dist(snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp)
    python3dist(snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp)



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-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Again, thanks for the review!

https://release-monitoring.org/project/371791/

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp

FEDORA-2024-27d5d3b561 (python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-27d5d3b561

FEDORA-2024-27d5d3b561 (python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp-0.1.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898 (python-smart_open-7.0.1-1.fc40, python-snakemake-executor-plugin-cluster-generic-1.0.9-1.fc40, and 8 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898

FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898

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

FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898

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

FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898

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

FEDORA-2024-71d83d5898 (python-smart_open-7.0.3-1.fc40, python-snakemake-executor-plugin-cluster-generic-1.0.9-1.fc40, and 8 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.