Bug 2235084 (python-typecode)

I'm taking this.

A few questions/remarks looking at the spec file. Formal review is coming up.

1. PyPI vs. GitHub

You are getting the source from GitHub. Is the PyPI tarball not usable?
Since pulling from GitHub, did you consider using forge macros? It makes the Source URL more readable and saves you from having to construct it yourself.

2. Documenting changes

In %prep you modify pyproject.toml and setup.cfg. Could you add a comment explaining why this is necessary.
For the first edit there might be a cleaner, more readable solution. Or you could do without it completely using the PyPI source which has the version set.

3. Duplicate license files

All license files are defined in `license_files` in `setup.cfg`. That means `%pyproject_save_files` treats them as such and marks them as license files. Use `rpm -q --licensefiles -p $RPM` to verify. Long story short, you can drop `%license`.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file bsd-new.LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
  ./tests/data/filetest/package/TicketImport-0.7a-py2.5.egg
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Python_Eggs/

=> These are bogus due to the nature of the package. The files are used for testing and/or internally.

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

=> When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package.

[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-typecode (description)

=> I'm not sure about this one. Will check.

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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
     Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "BSD
     2-Clause with views sentence", "MIT License BSD 2-Clause with views
     sentence", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD
     2-Clause License", "MIT License Apache License 2.0", "Python License
     2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD 2-Clause License", "BSD
     2-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "BSD 2-Clause License [generated
     file]", "Python Software Foundation License 2.0", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 2", "X11 License", "GNU General Public License",
     "BSD-4-Clause (University of California-Specific)", "GNU General
     Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple
     Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete
     FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 630 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/python-typecode/licensecheck.txt
=> Normally, I'd remove that, but this looks awesome ;)
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-typecode (description)
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python3-typecode
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-typecode-doc-30.0.1-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc38.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/tmpw729vvfe')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/apache-2.0.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/apache-2.0.LICENSE
python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/bsd-new.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/bsd-new.LICENSE
python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers_mapping.py.NOTICE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers.py.NOTICE
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 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: 2

python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/apache-2.0.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/apache-2.0.LICENSE
python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/bsd-new.LICENSE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/_vendor/bsd-new.LICENSE
python3-typecode.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers_mapping.py.NOTICE /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/typecode/pygments_lexers.py.NOTICE
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nexB/typecode/archive/v30.0.1/typecode-30.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7c1c3e89426aa5f3636a97b7deb4dce873a3111075d58094ea0ce11da4c64969
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7c1c3e89426aa5f3636a97b7deb4dce873a3111075d58094ea0ce11da4c64969


Requires
--------
python3-typecode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ((python3.11dist(attrs) < 20.1 or python3.11dist(attrs) > 20.1) with python3.11dist(attrs) >= 18.1)
    python(abi)
    python3.11dist(binaryornot)
    python3.11dist(commoncode)
    python3.11dist(pdfminer-six)
    python3.11dist(plugincode)

python-typecode-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-typecode:
    python-typecode
    python3-typecode
    python3.11-typecode
    python3.11dist(typecode)
    python3dist(typecode)

python-typecode-doc:
    python-typecode-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-typecode --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python
Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, R, Ocaml, Java, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Created attachment 1991074 [details]
Create git repo and tag with v%{version}

(In reply to Sandro from comment #2)
> For the first edit there might be a cleaner, more readable solution. Or you
> could do without it completely using the PyPI source which has the version
> set.

This is what I meant with "cleaner" solution. It's a matter of taste and thus not a blocker for the review.

Ping?

>1. PyPI vs. GitHub
>

Pypi tarball rarely haves docs or tests, Githb have them.

>You are getting the source from GitHub. Is the PyPI tarball not usable?
>Since pulling from GitHub, did you consider using forge macros? It makes the Source URL more readable and saves you from having to construct it yourself.

Forge macros are largely unmaintained and generally not recommended. Some woek is being done to streamline them.

>2. Documenting changes
>
>In %prep you modify pyproject.toml and setup.cfg. Could you add a comment explaining why this is necessary.
>For the first edit there might be a cleaner, more readable solution. Or you could do without it completely using the PyPI source which has the version set.

>3. Duplicate license files
>
>All license files are defined in `license_files` in `setup.cfg`. That means `%pyproject_save_files` treats them as such and marks them as license files. Use `rpm -q --licensefiles -p $RPM` to verify. Long story short, you can drop `%license`.


ok

>[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>
>=> When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package.

They literally are:

%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc
%doc html
%license NOTICE apache-2.0.LICENSE


Thanks for the review!

Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6540341
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2235084-python-typecode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06540341-python-typecode/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #6)
> >1. PyPI vs. GitHub
> >
> 
> Pypi tarball rarely haves docs or tests, Githb have them.

True. That's why I prefer GitHub sources myself. But I also submit PRs upstream to get that fixed. It's usually a packaging error. Tests and docs should be included in the sdist, but not the wheel.

> >You are getting the source from GitHub. Is the PyPI tarball not usable?
> >Since pulling from GitHub, did you consider using forge macros? It makes the Source URL more readable and saves you from having to construct it yourself.
> 
> Forge macros are largely unmaintained and generally not recommended. Some
> woek is being done to streamline them.

Not anymore. Maxwell has done an excellent job reviving them: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Revitalize_Forge_Macros

But it's not a requirement, more a matter of personal preference. In my opinion it makes spec files more readable, if nothing else.

> >[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> >
> >=> When installing the doc subpackage, no license files are installed. One solution is to make it require the main package.
> 
> They literally are:
> 
> %files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc
> %doc html
> %license NOTICE apache-2.0.LICENSE

My mistake. They are indeed.

> Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc39.
> src.rpm

The package no longer builds using `fedora-review -b 2235084`, while it did build before just fine. The only significant change I can see in the spec file, that might be relevant:

 %generate_buildrequires
-%pyproject_buildrequires -t
+%pyproject_buildrequires

Since that actually skips tox requirements, I'm surprised it no longer builds. The error message in `build.log` is:

No matching package to install: 'python3dist(typecode-libmagic-system-provided)'

Could you enable `fedora-review` in your Copr repo and rebuild the package, please?

Seems to buid fine, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/scancode-toolkit/build/6553875/
I have activated the fedora-review option if you wanna look.

Same as for python-sameyaml, the generated HTML docs contain Javascript code, which requires expansion of License: and additional Requires:. See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/

My apologies, again, for only noticing this now. That's the only remaining issue that needs to be addressed.

You may want to ask upstream, why they mark non-license files as license files in their setup.cfg:

license_files =
    apache-2.0.LICENSE
    NOTICE
    AUTHORS.rst
    CHANGELOG.rst
    CODE_OF_CONDUCT.rst

https://github.com/nexB/saneyaml/blob/40e5fa7c0b6e0012452053839184e5cd29802063/setup.cfg#L29C1-L34C24

Unbundled pygments and added missing licenses.

Added licenses for doc packages javacript

Added Provides for embedded javascript


Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode.spec
SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-typecode-30.0.1-1.fc39.src.rpm

Thanks.

> You may want to ask upstream, why they mark non-license files as license files in their setup.cfg:


I've sent an inquiry upstream.

One last nitpick. Since you now have

Requires:       python3-%{pypi_name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}

you can drop

%license NOTICE apache-2.0.LICENSE

from

%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc

But that can be dealt with when importing the package. Package is APPROVED.

Thanks for the review!

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

FEDORA-2023-312d34471b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-312d34471b

FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527

FEDORA-2023-e32c66cab3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e32c66cab3

FEDORA-2023-312d34471b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-312d34471b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-312d34471b

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

FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527

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

FEDORA-2023-e32c66cab3 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-2023-e32c66cab3 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e32c66cab3

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

FEDORA-2023-e32c66cab3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-c4f87c1527 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-312d34471b has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.