Bug 2184588

Summary: Review Request: python-flask-mailman - Porting Django's email implementation to your Flask applications
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sandro Mani <manisandro>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Felix Wang <topazus>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: mhroncok, package-review, snamila, sudar2, topazus
Target Milestone: ---Flags: topazus: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://github.com/waynerv/flask-mailman
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-04-11 22:13:23 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5744517 to 5745670
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5745670 to 5749870
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5749870 to 5756969
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5756969 to 5757892 none

Description Sandro Mani 2023-04-05 06:05:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: Porting Django's email implementation to your Flask applications
Fedora Account System Username: smani

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-05 06:11:50 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5744517
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05744517-python-flask-mailman/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 2 Miro Hrončok 2023-04-05 11:02:33 UTC
Using %{pypi_source} without a name argument (i.e. providing the value via %srcname) is deprecated in the new Python guidelines. I strongly suggest not defining %srcname at all.

The "# Drop deps" could use some more love (e.g. what kind of deps and why).

The second Summary: could be defined via %{summary}.

"%license LICENSE" might be redundant.

Is it possible to run the tests in %check? If not, please document the reason in a comment.

Comment 3 Sandro Mani 2023-04-05 12:31:26 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-2.fc39.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Feb 08 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-2
- Explicitly specify pypi_source
- Remove reduntant license
- Run %%tox in %%check
- Document patch reason

Comment 4 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-05 12:50:38 UTC
Created attachment 1955892 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5744517 to 5745670

Comment 5 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-05 12:50:41 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5745670
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05745670-python-flask-mailman/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 6 Felix Wang 2023-04-06 06:22:28 UTC
It seems that the pypi source does not contain tests, maybe you can switch to its corresponding tarball from github release.

ref: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi

Comment 7 Sandro Mani 2023-04-06 08:45:07 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.src.rpm

%changelog
* Thu Apr 06 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-3
- Switch to GitHub source

Comment 8 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-06 08:54:27 UTC
Created attachment 1956066 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5745670 to 5749870

Comment 9 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-06 08:54:29 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5749870
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05749870-python-flask-mailman/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 10 Felix Wang 2023-04-07 08:47:59 UTC
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3)
> Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-2.fc39.src.
> rpm
> 
> %changelog
> * Wed Feb 08 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-2
> - Explicitly specify pypi_source
> - Remove reduntant license
> - Run %%tox in %%check
> - Document patch reason

After removing the %license line, it seems that the package does not contain license file.

ref: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05749870-python-flask-mailman/python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm

Comment 11 Felix Wang 2023-04-07 08:57:06 UTC
(In reply to Felix Wang from comment #10)
> (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3)
> > Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
> > SRPM URL:
> > https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-2.fc39.src.
> > rpm
> > 
> > %changelog
> > * Wed Feb 08 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-2
> > - Explicitly specify pypi_source
> > - Remove reduntant license
> > - Run %%tox in %%check
> > - Document patch reason
> 
> After removing the %license line, it seems that the package does not contain
> license file.
> 
> ref:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-
> review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05749870-python-
> flask-mailman/python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm

Sorry for my wrong words and the mistake here, forgot it.

Comment 12 Sandro Mani 2023-04-07 12:30:24 UTC
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-4.fc39.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Apr 07 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-4
- Re-add %%license

Comment 13 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-07 12:35:40 UTC
Created attachment 1956237 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5749870 to 5756969

Comment 14 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-07 12:35:43 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5756969
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05756969-python-flask-mailman/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 15 Felix Wang 2023-04-07 15:04:12 UTC
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #12)
> Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-4.fc39.src.
> rpm
> 
> %changelog
> * Fri Apr 07 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-4
> - Re-add %%license

I am sorry for my mistake about license issue. You do not need to use %license line to add license. the %pyproject_save_files can add license.

```
❯ wget https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05749870-python-flask-mailman/python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm
--2023-04-07 23:01:45--  https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05749870-python-flask-mailman/python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm
Connecting to 127.0.0.1:7890... connected.
Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 45441 (44K) [application/x-rpm]
Saving to: ‘python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm’

python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3 100%[=================================================>]  44.38K  --.-KB/s    in 0.1s

2023-04-07 23:01:46 (419 KB/s) - ‘python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm’ saved [45441/45441]

❯ rpm -qlp ./python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm | grep LICENSE
warning: ./python3-flask-mailman-0.3.0-3.fc39.noarch.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID 3aabd587: NOKEY
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/flask_mailman-0.3.0.dist-info/LICENSE
```

quoted from Fedora packaging guideline about Python:

> %pyproject_save_files MODNAME …
> Generate a list of files corresponding to the given importable module(s) and save it as %{pyproject_files}.
> Note that README file is not included. The LICENSE file is included when it is specified in the metadata.

Comment 16 Sandro Mani 2023-04-07 20:11:21 UTC
Right, I though the license was supposed to be below /usr/share/licenses!

Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-mailman-0.3.0-5.fc39.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Apr 07 2023 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 0.3.0-5
- Remove reduntant license

Comment 17 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-07 20:15:42 UTC
Created attachment 1956288 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5756969 to 5757892

Comment 18 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-04-07 20:15:45 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5757892
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2184588-python-flask-mailman/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05757892-python-flask-mailman/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 19 Felix Wang 2023-04-11 10:53:16 UTC
I see that no assignee at the moment. I take this. You corrected the things that Miro Hrončok said, most of the package seems good to me. As for license issue, I read the documentation again, it said

> 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 must be included in %license.

Since it says 'must be included in %license', so you are right. The additional packaging of license file using %license will be all right, although %pyproject_save_files macro includes the license file. Apologized for my previous misunderstanding,which may give inconvenience to you.

But I note that some python-related packages does not use %license (put license under /usr/share/licenses), like python3-pytest, python3-virtualenv.

ref: https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/pytest/python3-pytest/fedora-rawhide.html
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-virtualenv/python3-virtualenv/fedora-rawhide.html

Finally, I approved the package.

Comment 20 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-04-11 11:03:42 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-mailman

Comment 21 Felix Wang 2023-04-11 11:13:32 UTC
Btw, Can you help me with the review request of rust-systemstat?
ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184899

Comment 22 Sandro Mani 2023-04-11 22:13:23 UTC
Thanks for the review.