Bug 1392089

Would you use the template on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file?
It would really improve readability with all those macros set there.

As pointed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist , %python_provide macro must be used.

Are there any reasons for not running upstream's test suite under %check?
I see there's one here https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf/blob/master/test_zeroconf.py

Also, are there any reasons for not including the README file under %doc?

There are also some missing Requires:

*** Bug 1395341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #2)
> There are also some missing Requires:

Feel free to actually list them explicitly, I'll get back to this next week, I've been dealing with f25 release so that's taken priority.

SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-2.fc25.src.rpm

koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16708202

Please continue the review or should I get someone else to continue it?

Hi Peter,

I am sorry for the delay here, I have been travelling in the past few weeks and probably missed the emails on this bug.

Please, see bug 1401337 and [1]

python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090

We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review.

I believe the former would be preferred, and if you agree, I would even contact the maintainer and send him a patch to include python2-zeroconf. Else, here is the review of the package:

I only found 2 issues here:

1 - the python3-zeroconf owns
/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/__pycache__
which belongs to system-python-libs. This issue appears in a few python3 packages when we use wildcards like %{python3_sitelib}/*

Since the python3 subpackage would be removed, this should be ignored.

2 - spec file line 2 reads:
%define with_tests 0

Guidelines sugest we use %global instead, as you can see in [2]. Note that this is not a must.

Other than that, the python2 package would be ready, if that's how you'd like to proceed.

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zeroconf/
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

> Please, see bug 1401337 and [1]
> 
> python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the
> maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a
> python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090

That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence.

> We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to
> the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf,
> remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review.

No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR

(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #8)
> > Please, see bug 1401337 and [1]
> > 
> That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence.

Yes, they probably forgot to check bugzilla for a review request before submitting it... maybe we should have a bot checking for duplicated review requests.

> > We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to
> > the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf,
> > remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review.
> 
> No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR

OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a python2-zeroconf subpackage.

> OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I
> suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a
> python2-zeroconf subpackage.

I will, I've requested co-maintainer, if they don't respond in a reasonable time I'll just push my needed changes anyway.

Marking as duplicate even though it should be the other way around.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1401337 ***