Bug 1911928

I have given up on fixing python-ryu and orphaned it again, but I still think unretiring this package is worthwhile.

Updated spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/music/rpms/python-ncclient/raw/a9608d2fcadad30f449eeffcf0de15a4c8fceb6f/f/python-ncclient.spec
Updated SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9001/62939001/python-ncclient-0.6.9-2.fc35.src.rpm

Updated Koji builds:

F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62939000
F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62939177
F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=62939192

 - Bump to 0.6.10

Package 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "Apache License 2.0". 111 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-ncclient/review-
     python-ncclient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: 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 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 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-ncclient
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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-ncclient-0.6.9-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-ncclient-doc-0.6.9-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
          python-ncclient-0.6.9-2.fc35.src.rpm
python3-ncclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US leopoul -> unpeople
python3-ncclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US einarnn -> incarnate
python3-ncclient.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-ncclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US leopoul -> unpeople
python-ncclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US einarnn -> incarnate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Thanks for the review.

I have filed the releng ticket for unretirement (https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10060) and will promptly update to the new 0.6.10 release after importing to dist-git.

Side note:

If you use:

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -t

You don't need to use:

BuildRequires:  python3dist(setuptools)

If you do need to use that, something is broken.

Thanks, Miro. You’re right. I have dropped the setuptools BR here, and I will do so in a number of other packages that use %pyproject_buildrequires.

Additionally, I found both nose (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateNose) and mock (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecatePythonMock) in the generated BR’s; I patched them out and made PR’s upstream.

FEDORA-2021-0af6020824 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0af6020824

FEDORA-2021-509e906760 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-509e906760

FEDORA-2021-0af6020824 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-0af6020824 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0af6020824

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-509e906760 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-509e906760 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-509e906760

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d3cbefadc8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d3cbefadc8

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d3cbefadc8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d3cbefadc8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2021-0af6020824 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2021-509e906760 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d3cbefadc8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.