Bug 2173018

I see that you are already tagged on this thread, but a reminder that https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1244 reaffirms that all the bundled javascript must be noted in the specfile.

Given the permanent state of near-total disaster that is my inbox, I guess it is not surprising that I did not notice that thread.  I will comment there.  Thanks for pointing it out.

I have added the following to the doc subpackage:

Provides:       bundled(js-jquery)
Provides:       bundled(js-underscore)

Their omission was an oversight.  The URLs are the same as before.  Thanks to %autorelease and %autochangelog, it is no longer possible to bump release numbers and provide commentary on the changes made in the package changelog.

I see that you've indicated uncertainty on how to handle the injected JS files from Sphinx itself on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1244, I definitely had a similar question.

On the jquery and underscore bundling, it seems like the guidelines indicate that a version number needs to be included as long as there is one available. In this case the version is definitely available. However, it certainly seems likely to quickly become inaccurate, since the version could change without a new update to this package. Namely, if Sphinx is upgraded and contains a version change of the bundled packages, and this package is rebuilt for any reason (like a mass rebuild for a new Fedora version), then the bundled library would be a different version than what the spec file indicates. Perhaps this is sufficient reason to not include version numbers, since there is no practical way to ensure they are correct over time?

To me, it doesn't seem like there is sufficient direction on properly applying current guidelines in these cases. Similar to Ben's approach [1], I ended up opting to not include the doxygen output for a few of my recent packages pending more clarity (which has a related, though possibly even worse situation as Sphinx generated docs). Of course, there are already many, many existing packages with Sphinx generated docs which complicates the application of any newly defined guidelines which might come out.

1: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/77PBRFO7OAQJTNCCY5TYIKGGXFLAKZJ4/

Yes, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that building docs with Sphinx is more trouble than it is worth.  It seems a shame to tell our users that we will provide them with code, but not with documentation.  On the other hand, if our users aren't actually consuming the documentation, perhaps it has no value.  But who can tell?

I have altered this package to omit the doc subpackage.  Once again, due to %autorelease and %autochangelog, there is no change in the URLs.  Maybe I should have an explicit changelog during the review process, then switch to autochangelog once the package is approved.

Yeah certainly a shame, I always appreciated included docs when I used to work on air-gapped systems, but it seems like it will be tricky to get right!

The package looks good, 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2173018-python-pytest-
     cython/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.
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-pytest-cython-0.2.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-pytest-cython-0.2.1-1.fc39.src.rpm
==================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9stwaste')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

===== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ====




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lgpage/pytest-cython/archive/v0.2.1/pytest-cython-0.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cc73e9620bbdf19d25274898187756eda399f98a2d29e5d07cf45534ae8d23d5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cc73e9620bbdf19d25274898187756eda399f98a2d29e5d07cf45534ae8d23d5


Requires
--------
python3-pytest-cython (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(pytest)



Provides
--------
python3-pytest-cython:
    python-pytest-cython
    python3-pytest-cython
    python3.11-pytest-cython
    python3.11dist(pytest-cython)
    python3dist(pytest-cython)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2173018
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, R, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you, Troy.  Much appreciated.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-cython

Forgot to close this bug.  The package has been built in Rawhide.