Bug 2121595

See notes/issues at bottom.

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2121595-python-uc-micro-
     py/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.
[!]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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 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.
[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:
[x]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

python3-uc-micro-py.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro/properties/Any/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro/categories/Cc/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro/categories/Cf/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro/categories/P/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro/categories/Z/__init__.py
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tsutsu3/uc.micro-py/archive/v1.0.1/uc.micro-py-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8f1a8667d13160a82948052f5f3855935427aac2d3a2223fc8627ffd9047040b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8f1a8667d13160a82948052f5f3855935427aac2d3a2223fc8627ffd9047040b


Requires
--------
python3-uc-micro-py (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-uc-micro-py:
    python-uc-micro-py
    python3-uc-micro-py
    python3.11-uc-micro-py
    python3.11dist(uc-micro-py)
    python3dist(uc-micro-py)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121595
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, PHP, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

----------------------------

> BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pip}
> BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist setuptools}
> BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist wheel}

This can all be replaced by the following in %prep: [1]

%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires

> BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}

This one should be replaced with `pytest` or `python3-pytest` instead of the %{py3_dist} macro.

> %files -n python3-uc-micro-py -f %{pyproject_files}
> %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md

You need to include the license.

+ %license LICENSE

====================

1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros

Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #1)
> > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pip}
> > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist setuptools}
> > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist wheel}
> 
> This can all be replaced by the following in %prep: [1]
> 
> %generate_buildrequires
> %pyproject_buildrequires

As I mentioned in the other review you did for me, I deliberately do not use automatically generated BuildRequires.

> > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}
> 
> This one should be replaced with `pytest` or `python3-pytest` instead of the
> %{py3_dist} macro.

Also mentioned in the other review: I see no reason to avoid the py3_dist macro.

> You need to include the license.
> 
> + %license LICENSE

One of the benefits of using the %pyproject* macros is that the license file is included in the dist-info [1].  In this case, a query shows that the binary RPM does include the license, and that it is marked as a license:

$ rpm -qL python3-uc-micro-py-1.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro_py-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros -- see the %pyproject_save_files description

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> (In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #1)
> > > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pip}
> > > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist setuptools}
> > > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist wheel}
> > 
> > This can all be replaced by the following in %prep: [1]
> > 
> > %generate_buildrequires
> > %pyproject_buildrequires
> 

I would urge you to look at retooling towards this method and use `dnf repoquery` and similar to deal with deps.  It will make RPM management easier for you going forward.

I won't hold up the review over this, of course since nothing explicitly says it's required.

> 
> > > BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist pytest}
> > 
> > This one should be replaced with `pytest` or `python3-pytest` instead of the
> > %{py3_dist} macro.
> 

I can't find any specific guidance saying it's deprecated or to avoid it so this is not a blocker of course.

> 
> > You need to include the license.
> > 
> > + %license LICENSE
> 
> One of the benefits of using the %pyproject* macros is that the license file
> is included in the dist-info [1].  In this case, a query shows that the
> binary RPM does include the license, and that it is marked as a license:
> 
> $ rpm -qL python3-uc-micro-py-1.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
> /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/uc_micro_py-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE
> 
> [1]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_build_macros -- see the %pyproject_save_files description

Doh, my bad.

Package is APPROVED!

(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #3)
> I would urge you to look at retooling towards this method and use `dnf
> repoquery` and similar to deal with deps.  It will make RPM management
> easier for you going forward.

I doubt it.  My current approach lets me examine large numbers of spec files using only local disk accesses.  Repoquery only lets me query 1 package at a time, and it is several orders of magnitude slower than grep.  Every approach has pros and cons.  For my workflow, the cons of automatic BuildRequires outweigh their pros.  I recognize that I might be the only person in the universe for which that is true. :-)

Thanks again for the review.

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

FEDORA-2022-499c453db5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-499c453db5

The builds are done for Rawhide and F37.  A buildroot override has been submitted for F37.  To make sure they are available for building against, run:

Rawhide: koji wait-repo --target rawhide --build=python-uc-micro-py-1.0.1-1.fc38
F37: koji wait-repo f37-build --build=python-uc-micro-py-1.0.1-1.fc37

FEDORA-2022-499c453db5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-499c453db5 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-499c453db5

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

FEDORA-2022-499c453db5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.