Bug 1893732

Not sure how well the 🤯 will play with various tooling :)

I'll review with dependencies from that COPR; I trust they'll get into Fedora eventually.

I trust you'll coordinate the update with poetry, lark-parser and tomlkit.
Accepted. Thank you!


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

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

Issues
======

Directories in site-packages/poetry are also owned by python3-poetry.
I expect that'll be sorted out in a joint update.


===== 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
     License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License", "Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
     "Revised" License", "GNU General Public License (v2 or later)". 308
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /tmp/fedorev/1893732-python-poetry-core/licensecheck.txt
     Note: All those extra licences are found in vendored files and tests,
     which aren't shipped.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
     packages/poetry(python3-poetry), /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
     packages/poetry/__pycache__(python3-poetry)
[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
[-]: 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 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]: 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).
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[X]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-poetry-core-1.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-poetry-core-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-poetry-core.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds
python-poetry-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend.
python3-poetry-core.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontends -> front ends, front-ends, fronds
python3-poetry-core.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry-core <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry-core/archive/1.0.0/poetry-core-1.0.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c8cff356f09b483cdbe752a18fa8a95716a55a225981e78410816659a9f82b87
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8cff356f09b483cdbe752a18fa8a95716a55a225981e78410816659a9f82b87


Requires
--------
python3-poetry-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (python3.9dist(jsonschema) < 4 with python3.9dist(jsonschema) >= 3.2)
    (python3.9dist(lark-parser) < 0.10 with python3.9dist(lark-parser) >= 0.9)
    (python3.9dist(packaging) < 21 with python3.9dist(packaging) >= 20.1)
    (python3.9dist(tomlkit) < 1 with python3.9dist(tomlkit) >= 0.7)
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-poetry-core:
    python-poetry-core
    python3-poetry-core
    python3.9-poetry-core
    python3.9dist(poetry-core)
    python3dist(poetry-core)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1893732 -L localrpms/
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, fonts, PHP, Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Built with local dependencies:
    /tmp/fedorev/localrpms/python3-lark-parser-0.9.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
    /tmp/fedorev/localrpms/python3-tomlkit-0.7.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm

Thanks for the review, Petr!


> Not sure how well the 🤯 will play with various tooling :)

I suspect it will work similarly as my name. If not, we can always ditch it :)



> Directories in site-packages/poetry are also owned by python3-poetry.
> I expect that'll be sorted out in a joint update.

Here is the poetry update: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/poetry/pull-request/5

The idea is that poetry-core owns:

/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__init__.py (+ cache)
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/core/

And poetry owns everything else:

/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__main__.py (+ cache)
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__version__.py (+ cache)
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/*/ (except core)
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/*.py (+ cache, except __init__.py)

I think it works well. There seem to be no conflicts. But feel free to validate. (The Copr has both packages.)

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-poetry-core

FEDORA-2020-58f1e1df0f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.