Bug 2247275
| Summary: | Review Request: python-flexparser - Parsing made fun … using typing | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ben Beasley <code> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, quantum.analyst | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | quantum.analyst:
fedora-review+
|
||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| URL: | https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | Trivial | ||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2023-12-31 17:39:09 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: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1941410 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Ben Beasley
2023-10-31 16:17:50 UTC
See also bug 2222279 for python-flexcache, which was a very similar package from the same author. It looks like unbundling from python-pint will actually require a pre-release snapshot of 0.2 (not yet released, https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5). I’ll update this with a new submission shortly. New Spec URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/python-flexparser.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/python-flexparser-0.2~20221025git49e5c11-1.fc38.src.rpm The exact commit packaged is chosen to correspond to the version vendored in https://github.com/hgrecco/pint . I’ve asked upstream about making a new release in https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5 . F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383192 F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383193 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383196 Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6586113 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/srpm-builds/06586113/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. Ugh; I’ve posted two sets of broken URLs. I bumped the packaged version forward by one to match what is vendored in pint 0.20.1 and later, and fixed the URLs: New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-flexparser.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-flexparser-0.2~20221026git66b1338-1.fc38.src.rpm Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6586261 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06586261-python-flexparser/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. You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. And maybe time to ping upstream about that release? (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #7) > You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. The note isn’t a TODO for myself, but a note for the benefit of other reviewers and readers, a habit I got into as an early adopter of pyproject-rpm-macros. I suppose that the license file handling is now sufficiently well-known that I can stop adding this comment. It’s probably not worth uploading a new spec and SRPM to remove the comment, but I’m happy to remove it on import. > And maybe time to ping upstream about that release? Good idea. Pinged. https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5#issuecomment-1826479693 Upstream released flexparser 0.2, so I:
- Switched from a GitHub archive to the PyPI sdist; this means I can’t package the examples (so there is no longer a -doc subpackage), but that isn’t terribly important. At the same time, it means I don’t have to fiddle with SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION, and the entire package is simplified.
- Removed the comment about licenses in %files (but it still applies, in that %{pyproject_files} does correctly handle the license files).
New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231127/python-flexparser.spec
New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231127/python-flexparser-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
This no longer works correctly with https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pint/pull-request/10 due to API compatibilities, but it should work once pint 0.23 is released, and we should be able to make the PR work by temporarily bundling the required flexparser snapshot for pint 0.22 until then.
Created attachment 2001749 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6586261 to 6700404
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6700404 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06700404-python-flexparser/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. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #7) > > You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. > > The note isn’t a TODO for myself, but a note for the benefit of other > reviewers and readers, a habit I got into as an early adopter of > pyproject-rpm-macros. I suppose that the license file handling is now > sufficiently well-known that I can stop adding this comment. > > It’s probably not worth uploading a new spec and SRPM to remove the comment, > but I’m happy to remove it on import. > You can now pass -l to %pyproject_save_files. Everything else looks good to me. The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flexparser (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #12) > You can now pass -l to %pyproject_save_files. > > > Everything else looks good to me. Thank you for the review! I added the package to Koschei, configured release monitoring[1], and added -l to %pyproject_save_files[2]. [1] https://release-monitoring.org/project/253145/ [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flexparser/c/a556984bbdb38071997c209da4ae3171a1eff3c2?branch=rawhide FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591 FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 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-2023-6f3e9c8768 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c 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-2023-42ba2c9f2c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 (python-flexparser-0.3.1-5.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 (python-flexparser-0.3.1-5.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |