Bug 2149430

Summary: Review Request: python-syndom - A simple RSS/Atom parser library
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Kalev Lember <klember>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Michael Catanzaro <mcatanza>
Status: ASSIGNED --- QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: mcatanza, mcatanzaro+wrong-account-do-not-cc, package-review, ppisar
Target Milestone: ---Flags: ppisar: fedora-review?
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Kalev Lember 2022-11-29 21:23:03 UTC
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/python-syndom.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/python-syndom-1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
A simple RSS/Atom parser library written in C++, with Python bindings.

It's a new dependency for the gnome-feeds package that's already in Fedora.

Fedora Account System Username: kalev

Comment 1 Kalev Lember 2022-11-29 21:28:06 UTC
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94710128

Comment 2 Michael Catanzaro 2022-11-29 21:36:25 UTC
I'm not sure about the naming strategy here. This is a C++ library, but source package name will start with "python-" just because it has python bindings? I would name the package "syndication-domination" to match upstream, and then install a python- subpackage. Even if there's nothing outside that subpackage, that's OK.

Comment 3 Michael Catanzaro 2022-11-29 21:43:23 UTC
Looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming we have a really iffy edge case. "A source package containing primarily a Python library MUST be named with the prefix python-." And currently the python library is all that the package ships. But these are really python bindings for a non-python library. What if syndication-domination chanegs in the future and starts installing a C++ library? Then we have to rename the source package, which is awkward.

Comment 4 Kalev Lember 2022-11-29 21:49:56 UTC
Yes, good points. I don't think there is a clear winner here: On one hand it would be nice to match the upstream "syndication-domination" source package name, on the other hand making the source package name wildly different from the binary package can also be confusing (especially when reporting bugs against the package).

I'm really fine either way, so if you strongly prefer "syndication-domination" I'd be happy to use that name.

Comment 5 Michael Catanzaro 2022-11-29 21:53:40 UTC
It fails this rule: "Each Python package MUST include Package Distribution Metadata conforming to PyPA specifications (specifically, Recording installed projects)." And that will transitively cause it to fail the "Machine-readable provides" rule as well. I don't see any other important python-specific problems, although I'm hardly an expert.

There is also a rule that we SHOULD talk to upstream about getting the project name either registered OR blocked on PyPI, to prevent squatting.

Comment 6 Michael Catanzaro 2022-11-29 21:54:54 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #4)
> Yes, good points. I don't think there is a clear winner here: On one hand it
> would be nice to match the upstream "syndication-domination" source package
> name, on the other hand making the source package name wildly different from
> the binary package can also be confusing (especially when reporting bugs
> against the package).

Yeah I know. It's your call, but my vote is for "syndication-domination" as it's more future-proof and easier to find the upstream project. But yes, that indeed makes it harder to find the source package from the binary package. There's no winning here. :/

Comment 7 Michael Catanzaro 2022-11-29 22:06:23 UTC
So I see three problems. (a) Missing metadata, per comment #5. (b) Missing provides caused by missing metadata, per comment #5. (c) Also the -debuginfo package is completely missing, which is bad, even though there is a -debugsource package... wtf?

Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. mcatanzaro: it is
     which is fine.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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", "GNU Affero General Public License
     v3.0", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License v3.0". 20
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
     Something looks wrong here, there is a -debugsource but no -debuginfo.
     Not sure what's up.
[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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
     Note: see comment #5, above.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
     Note: see comment #5
[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 =====

[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
     Note: "every Python package MUST provide python3dist(DISTNAME) and
     python3.Xdist(DISTNAME)," see comment #5
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[x]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.

Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 

Unversioned so-files
python3-syndom: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/syndom.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
https://gitlab.com/gabmus/syndication-domination/-/archive/1.0/syndication-domination-1.0.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 74b32fbe7625b575cc8da1e0eeee06c4546ee721041ce4965985f76b5bcf2b22

python3-syndom (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-syndom-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
--- /home/mcatanzaro/2149430-python-syndom/srpm/python-syndom.spec	2022-11-29 15:25:46.327461714 -0600
+++ /home/mcatanzaro/2149430-python-syndom/srpm-unpacked/python-syndom.spec	2022-11-29 15:19:58.000000000 -0600
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.3.0)
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
 Name:           python-syndom
 Version:        1.0
@@ -53,3 +62,4 @@
+* Tue Nov 29 2022 Kalev Lember <klember> 1.0-1
+- Initial Fedora packaging

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2149430
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R

Comment 8 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 2023-01-26 11:27:07 UTC
@mcatanza you haven't assigned yourself as reviewer, so you shouldn't be setting the fedora-review? flag. Either make the assignment explicit if you're reviewing this one or drop the flag, please.

Comment 9 Michael Catanzaro 2023-01-30 14:35:37 UTC
I had intended to be the reviewer here.