Bug 1785391

just some random bikeshedding :-)

> Source0:        https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/spec/spec-%{version}.tar.gz

How about %pypi_source here? (%global srcname spec)
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi

Also: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

> Requires:       python3-nose >= 1.3
> Requires:       python3-six

This might be picked up automatically in F30+


> %setup -q -n spec-%{version}

you may want to use:
%autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version}

> %{python3_sitelib}/spec-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/

This will break once we have Python 3.10. Packaging guide suggests:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info/

Consider enabling source file verification: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
You can use "%{pypi_source}.asc" to download the GPG signature.

(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #1)
> just some random bikeshedding :-)
> 
> > Source0:        https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/spec/spec-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> How about %pypi_source here? (%global srcname spec)

OK, done in -2.

> Also:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_the_python_provide_macro

OK, done in -2.

> > Requires:       python3-nose >= 1.3
> > Requires:       python3-six
> 
> This might be picked up automatically in F30+

Indeed they are; EL-8 too.

> > %setup -q -n spec-%{version}
> 
> you may want to use:
> %autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version}

I prefer not to use %autosetup because I prefer to comment on patches as they are applied rather than when they are declared.

> > %{python3_sitelib}/spec-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info/
> 
> This will break once we have Python 3.10. Packaging guide suggests:
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info/

Fixed in -2.

(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #2)
> Consider enabling source file verification:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_source_file_verification
> You can use "%{pypi_source}.asc" to download the GPG signature.

Done in -2.

Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/python-spec/branches/fedora/python-spec.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/python-spec/python-spec-1.4.1-2.fc32.src.rpm

> I prefer not to use %autosetup because I prefer to comment on patches as they are applied rather than when they are declared.

Of course that is a valid reason :-)


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

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

Issues:
=======

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL (the latest github version uses copyright year 2019).

===== 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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 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]: 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 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 is not relocatable.
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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:
[?]: 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.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: Source 3 is not passed to gpgverify.
[x]: 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.
[-]: %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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Bad spec filename: …/python-spec.spec
-> likely buggy check, spec file name is fine

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).



Package is APPROVED with one minor issue:
- Please update the LICENSE file before importing (either use the latest file or the one which present in the repo when version 1.4.1 was released)

Another suggestion:
- Upstream has some test files in the github repo (but does not ship them in their pypi release). It would be nice to run these on each build.

Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9134

I'll update the LICENSE file (just a copyright date change)

As for the test suite, I can't seem to get it to run properly during the build. Any ideas?

I didn't check the test suite myself but I can imagine that it might be a bit of work to get it working as the upstream project seems to be a bit "dormant". Anyway, I'll try to find some  time in a week or so to find out if I can get it working. :-)

(In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #5)
> As for the test suite, I can't seem to get it to run properly during the
> build. Any ideas?

I'm sorry that I lured you in the wrong direction. I just found https://github.com/bitprophet/spec/issues/29#issuecomment-16341460 so it seems the test suite is actually broken. If the maintainer did not bother I don't think there is a point in trying to fix this in Fedora.

Thanks; I'll leave it as it is then. Build is done in rawhide, waiting for branches for F-30, F-31 and EPEL-8.

FEDORA-2020-8daef8ba24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8daef8ba24

FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b4940fecba has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b4940fecba

python-spec-1.4.1-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b4940fecba

python-spec-1.4.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8daef8ba24

FEDORA-2020-f70efd58e1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f70efd58e1

python-spec-1.4.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f70efd58e1

python-spec-1.4.1-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-spec-1.4.1-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

python-spec-1.4.1-2.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.