Bug 1529396

Hey Carl,

This package already exists on Fedora, so that is no need to open a bug with status NEW. I took a look on the repo commits (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-websocket-client/commits/master) and the last commit was 12 days ago (so it is still being maintained). I noticed that you had opened a PR on the repo, so you should try to get in touch with the maintainers on the devel list, talking about your PR.

Howdy David,

This package is not for Fedora, it is for EPEL only.  It is part of a larger effort to have a full Python 3.4 stack available in EPEL.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3

Since python-websocket-client exists in RHEL, a different SRPM name must be used.

> Packages already in RHEL
> Some packages imported from Fedora, for example python-setuptools, would have
> same SRPM name (possibly different version) as packages in base RHEL. Since SRPM
> names must not conflict, it is necessary to create python3-<name> package for
> these (assuming it doesn't exist yet in Fedora), do a new package review and
> build it just for EPEL (the package will likely have python3- subpackage already
> in Fedora built from python-<name>).

When built, this python3-websocket-client spec file creates a python34-websocket-client RPM.

Here are reviews for other similar packages.

python3-setuptools - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294704
python3-six - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294865
python3-netaddr - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394046

Enclose your subpackage like this, otherwise it creates a conflict if python version is 3 and mock/fedora-review can't process the SPEC:

%if %{python3_pkgversion} != 3
%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-websocket-client
Summary:            %{summary}
BuildRequires:      python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
BuildRequires:      python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools
BuildRequires:      python%{python3_pkgversion}-six
Requires:           python%{python3_pkgversion}-six


%description -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-websocket-client %_description
%endif

 - Latest version is 0.46.0, published 3 days ago.


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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
     MPL (v2.0)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-websocket-client
     /review-python3-websocket-client/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== 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.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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-websocket-client-0.45.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
python3-websocket-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hybi -> hybrid
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Bumped to 0.46.0 as requested.

Spec URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-websocket-client.spec
SRPM URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-websocket-client-0.46.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm

Ok, package approved.

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-websocket-client. You may commit to the branch "epel7" in about 10 minutes.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-websocket-client-0.46.0-1.el7