Bug 2188653

Updated spec and srpm to properly generate python3-vkbasalt-cli subpackage.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05836919-vkbasalt-cli/vkbasalt-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05836919-vkbasalt-cli/vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1-2.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/5836919/

The same comment about the _name macros applies here. I'd also advise against the forge macros given their current maintenance status. Also, the way you split up the subpackages doesn't make sense to me. I'd recommend creating a single vkbassalt-cli package. Otherwise, only python3-vkbassalt-cli should own the python package files (i.e. you should remove `-f %{pyproject_files}` from the main's packages `%files`) and vkbassalt-cli should have `Requires: python3-vkbassalt-cli = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}`.
```

Also, you should note https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_parity. This project is not packaged on PyPI.

Thanks for the review!

> Also, you should note
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_pypi_parity. This project is not packaged on PyPI.

I noticed that it is missing on PyPI, but didn't link it to the PyPI parity section in the packaging guidelines. It sounds prohibitive for inclusion in Fedora as is. I will start with a bug report upstream.

I'll implement your other recommendations while I wait for an answer on the PyPI issue. I'm inclined to go the dual 'vkbasalt-cli', 'python3-vkbasalt-cli' way. Seeing that the name of the executable is 'vkbasalt', would it make sense to add an additional 'Provides: vkbasalt-%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}'?

I filed an issue upstream regarding PyPI release: https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/vkbasalt-cli/-/issues/10

Meanwhile I implemented the changes,, providing a main package for the app and a subpackage for the library.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05844221-vkbasalt-cli/vkbasalt-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05844221-vkbasalt-cli/vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1-3.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/reviews/build/5844221/

Created attachment 1959530 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5828747 to 5844412

New URLs reflecting the change in package name:

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/bottles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05916895-python-vkbasalt-cli/python-vkbasalt-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/bottles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05916895-python-vkbasalt-cli/python-vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/bottles/build/5916895/

> I filed an issue upstream regarding PyPI release: https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/vkbasalt-cli/-/issues/10

I will publish the package on PyPI the coming days, since I haven't heard back from upstream regarding my request.

Package is now on PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/vkbasalt-cli/

Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- The python3 package should be named 'python3-vkbasalt-cli' not 'python-python3-vkbasalt-cli'
- Would it make sense to Requires: vkBasalt?


===== 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: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3
     GNU General Public License, Version 3", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 3". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2188653-python-vkbasalt-
     cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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 1 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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[?]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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.

===== 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-python-vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          python-vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1-1.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/tmpqwpkxa08')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

python3-python-vkbasalt-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vkbasalt
===== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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

python3-python-vkbasalt-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vkbasalt
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/vkbasalt-cli/-/archive/v3.1.1/vkbasalt-cli-v3.1.1.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : af4658d0723d094f18d4592fc03fbd417a79037b66b388e3f551b583f233469e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af4658d0723d094f18d4592fc03fbd417a79037b66b388e3f551b583f233469e


Requires
--------
python3-python-vkbasalt-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-python-vkbasalt-cli:
    python-python-vkbasalt-cli
    python3-python-vkbasalt-cli
    python3.11-python-vkbasalt-cli
    python3.11dist(vkbasalt-cli)
    python3dist(vkbasalt-cli)
    vkbasalt-cli



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2188653
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, fonts, C/C++, PHP, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the review!

>- The python3 package should be named 'python3-vkbasalt-cli' not 'python-python3-vkbasalt-cli'

Indeed it should. An oversight after renaming the package to python-vkbasalt-cli. Now fixed.

>- Would it make sense to Requires: vkBasalt?

Probably. Since this is a dependency for Bottles, I assume Bottles makes use of vkbasalt somehow. But it has no dependency on the package whatsoever. Since it doesn't hurt, I added it as a requirement.

I also switched the source of the package to PyPI, currently maintained by moi. ;-)

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/bottles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05931837-python-vkbasalt-cli/python-vkbasalt-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/bottles/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05931837-python-vkbasalt-cli/python-vkbasalt-cli-3.1.1.post1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/bottles/build/5931837/

Created attachment 1965448 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5925958 to 5931889

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5931889
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2188653-python-vkbasalt-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05931889-python-vkbasalt-cli/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.

Reviewed changes, looks good now.
BTW, I've also checked that '/usr/bin/vkbasalt' provided by this package doesn't conflict with anything in the main 'vkBasalt' package, so I'd say it's ok...

> BTW, I've also checked that '/usr/bin/vkbasalt' provided by this package
> doesn't conflict with anything in the main 'vkBasalt' package, so I'd say
> it's ok...

Yeah, that's a bit of a concern. Let's hope vkBasalt remains purely a library. ;-)

Thanks for the review!

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