Bug 1979708
Summary: | Review Request: python-configupdater - Parser like ConfigParser but for updating configuration files | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Arthur Bols <arthur> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | arthur, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | arthur:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-07-16 00:59:45 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1911815 |
Description
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
2021-07-06 19:00:19 UTC
I haven't gone through everything yet, but it looks very good. Some small issues: - A few typos: * as wells as their cases -> as well as their cases * missing space between "-" and "interpolation of values" - Change the summary for the doc subpackage to something more appropriate. Thanks very much Arthur, I can make these cosmetic tweaks before the import. Are you a package maintainer already? (zodbot couldn't find you, but zodbot may be out of sync with the new accounts system). Please set the review flag if you are. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer The Needinfo flag is also generally used when someone has not responded, as it sends extra bugzilla reminder e-mails. Cheers, Ankur Updated spec srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm * Wed Jul 07 2021 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.0-1 - improve doc pacakge description - add space in package description Cheers, Ankur Thank you for the info, all the different flags were a bit confusing. :) > Are you a package maintainer already? I'm in the packager group, I think that suffices? https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/principis/ There are some trivial issues left: - You've used %{summary} for the summary of the doc package. I think something like this would be better: Documentation for python-configupdater - You seem to have missed the typo in the description * as wells as their cases -> as well as their cases - Typo in changelog * pacakge -> package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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* [generated file]", "*No copyright* Python Software Foundation License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/Documents/rpm/python- configupdater/1979708-python-configupdater/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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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. [-]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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-ConfigUpdater [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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-ConfigUpdater-2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-configupdater-doc-2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/C/ConfigUpdater/ConfigUpdater-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a60447fb25e5cb5036cdd5761287ac5649135a49094bc8bd71d999417483441 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a60447fb25e5cb5036cdd5761287ac5649135a49094bc8bd71d999417483441 Requires -------- python3-ConfigUpdater (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-configupdater-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-ConfigUpdater: python-ConfigUpdater python3-ConfigUpdater python3.10-ConfigUpdater python3.10dist(configupdater) python3dist(configupdater) python-configupdater-doc: python-configupdater-doc Package approved! Please resolve the remarks above before import. Thanks very much Arthur. Yes, if you weren't in the packager group, you wouldn't be able to use the fedora-review flag :) I've updated the spec/srpm: * Wed Jul 07 2021 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.0-1 - minor typo fixes - improve doc sub-package summary Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Requesting SCM now. Cheers, Ankur (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-configupdater FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 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-2021-702448bf24 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |