https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856825

Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Package is not installable:

DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides python3.9dist(argparse) needed by python3-credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: package credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch requires python3-credslayer = 0.1.1-1.fc33, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:621: - conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides python3.9dist(argparse) needed by python3-credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch

It is provided by Python > 3.2 so it should be removed from the setup.py so that it is not required from the automatic dependency generator.

- Remove the shebang in %prep:

python3-credslayer.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/credslayer/credslayer.py 644 /usr/bin/python3

Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before import.

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

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

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/credslayer/review- credslayer/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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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 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 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: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-credslayer [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python3-credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm python-credslayer-doc-0.1.1-1.fc33.noarch.rpm credslayer-0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm credslayer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap credslayer.noarch: W: no-documentation credslayer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary credslayer python3-credslayer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap python3-credslayer.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/credslayer/credslayer.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 credslayer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcap -> pap, cap, p cap 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856825

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-10c1d383c2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10c1d383c2

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856825

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1772481

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772481 [Bug 1772481] python3-sphinx-argparse is missing in EPEL8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856825

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-cc335c66b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-cc335c66b0 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cc335c66b0

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856825

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-cc335c66b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.