https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- I don't see any issues --> APPROVED

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

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

===== 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. [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 2 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyxdf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3bc4bb2168 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3bc4bb2168

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3bc4bb2168 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-2023-3bc4bb2168 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3bc4bb2168

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=2196859

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-87d0a907b8 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-2023-87d0a907b8

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=2196859

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-3bc4bb2168 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-30c2153ed0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-30c2153ed0

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196859

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2024-37b41641eb (python-pyxdf-1.16.8-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-37b41641eb