Spec URL: https://github.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/blob/master/python-cookies.spec SRPM URL (GPG signed): https://germano.fedorapeople.org/srpm/python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm SRPM URL (EsteID signed): https://germano.fedorapeople.org/srpm/python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.bdoc Description: cookies.py is a Python module for working with HTTP cookies: parsing and rendering ‘Cookie:’ request headers and ‘Set-Cookie:’ response headers, and exposing a convenient API for creating and modifying cookies. It can be used as a replacement of Python’s Cookie.py (aka http.cookies). Fedora Account System Username: germano GPG key id: A903090E EsteID (DIGI-ID E-RESIDENT) serial number 38601270070
Copr build, in case you want to give a look to logs https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/germano/meshnet-python-packages/build/152912/
Let's start with some small things to fix and then we'll move to the formal review as soon as those small things are out of the way. 0. (not for review, but future reviews) please don't link github webpages but real files because linking to github HTML pages breaks fedora-review 1. test_cookies.py is 644 but has shabang. One of the two has to be changed (probably the former) 2. You remove test_cookied.py in the %check section. This is wrong and does not make any sense. You can do it in %prep if you want to remove it before compiling or in %install (after %pyX_build) if you want to remove it after compiling 3. Do you want to be able to package it under EL? If yes, it will not work as it is now because EL does not have python3, %py2_build, and %py2_install 4. Please use "BuildRequires: python2-devel" instead of "BuildRequires: python-devel" 5. Please include the LICENSE file. If it's not provided directly by the package, use an external source
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #2) > Let's start with some small things to fix and then we'll move to the formal > review as soon as those small things are out of the way. > > 0. (not for review, but future reviews) please don't link github webpages > but real files because linking to github HTML pages breaks fedora-review > > 1. test_cookies.py is 644 but has shabang. One of the two has to be changed > (probably the former) > > 2. You remove test_cookied.py in the %check section. This is wrong and does > not make any sense. You can do it in %prep if you want to remove it before > compiling or in %install (after %pyX_build) if you want to remove it after > compiling > > 3. Do you want to be able to package it under EL? If yes, it will not work > as it is now because EL does not have python3, %py2_build, and %py2_install > > 4. Please use "BuildRequires: python2-devel" instead of "BuildRequires: > python-devel" > > 5. Please include the LICENSE file. If it's not provided directly by the > package, use an external source ==== STATUS AND COMMENTS ==== 1. REJECTED. The file will be removed and not included in RPM package. 2. DONE. 3. TODO. Yes I want to be able to package it under EL. What can I do? I simply followed Fedora's packaging guidelines for Python packages [1] 4. REJECTED. There is no python2-devel package, only python-devel (for Python2) and python3-devel (for Python3) 5. DONE. All changes are available at [2] [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [2]: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/master/python-cookies.spec
I also have uploaded the new src rpm file at https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-cookies/fixed_files_after_review/python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
python2-devel is a virtual Provides of python-devel. The guidelines explicitly say you should use the python2-* names to be future-safe. So please use python2-devel. Try it, you'll see that it works.
==== STATUS AND COMMENTS ==== 1. REJECTED. The file will be removed and not included in RPM package. 2. DONE. 3. TODO. Yes I want to be able to package it under EL. What can I do? I simply followed Fedora's packaging guidelines for Python packages [1] 4. DONE. 5. DONE. All changes are available at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/master/python-cookies.spec https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-cookies/fixed_files_after_review/python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Ok, here we are! So, starting from the previous points, ok on all of them (the point 1 raised a flag since the file was not deletef due to 2, so fixind 2 makes 1 pointless, as you pointed out). I think we are pretty close to the approval, few changes are still needed: 1. I would use https://gitlab.com/sashahart/cookies/raw/master/LICENSE as Source1 2. You have to delete the shipped egg folder (rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info) in %prep 3. The %shangelog area has to be filled
> 2. You have to delete the shipped egg folder (rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info) in %prep No. egg-info should NOT be deleted anymore. (This changed years ago!)
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #7) > Ok, here we are! > > So, starting from the previous points, ok on all of them (the point 1 raised > a flag since the file was not deletef due to 2, so fixind 2 makes 1 > pointless, as you pointed out). > > I think we are pretty close to the approval, few changes are still needed: > > 1. I would use https://gitlab.com/sashahart/cookies/raw/master/LICENSE as > Source1 > > 2. You have to delete the shipped egg folder (rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info) > in %prep > > 3. The %shangelog area has to be filled ==== STATUS AND COMMENTS ==== 1. DONE 2. REJECTED (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #8) > > 2. You have to delete the shipped egg folder (rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info) in %prep > > No. egg-info should NOT be deleted anymore. (This changed years ago!) 3. DONE All changes are available at https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/python-cookies/fixed_files_after_review/python-cookies.spec
Thanks Kevin for your note :). As for the package it is APPROVED. I would suggest to align properly the Source1 aligned to all the other items, because now is a little bit ugly :D. The formal review follows: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fale/Downloads/python-cookies/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.4/site- packages/__pycache__(python3-decorator, python3-six, python3-libs, python3-augeas, langtable-python3, python3-setuptools, python3-ntplib) [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. [-]: 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 20480 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: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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 python2-cookies , python3-cookies [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python2-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python3-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm python2-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er python2-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python2-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP python3-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er python3-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python3-cookies.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP python-cookies.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er python-cookies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US py -> pt, p, y python-cookies.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP python-cookies.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 12) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- python3-cookies (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-cookies (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-cookies: python3-cookies python2-cookies: python-cookies python2-cookies Source checksums ---------------- https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/c/cookies/cookies-2.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d6b698788cae4cfa4e62ef8643a9ca332b79bd96cb314294b864ae8d7eb3ee8e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d6b698788cae4cfa4e62ef8643a9ca332b79bd96cb314294b864ae8d7eb3ee8e https://gitlab.com/sashahart/cookies/raw/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d7834c6fc5e3e895982766815b62b7f2d48c7469b80f7e9413b3017c30b56f0b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d7834c6fc5e3e895982766815b62b7f2d48c7469b80f7e9413b3017c30b56f0b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn /home/fale/rpmbuild/SRPMS/python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Can you please go ahead and get this imported and built? I need it to package python-responses, which I need to be able to run python-mwclient's test suite. Thanks :) It'd also be good if there could be EPEL builds (as I have EPEL builds of python-mwclient). Python 3 on EPEL is a bit of a complex topic ATM, so my approach so far has just been to disable the py3 stuff for my packages on EPEL, see e.g. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-mimerender.git/tree/python-mimerender.spec , note the with_python3 stuff.
(In reply to awilliam from comment #11) > Can you please go ahead and get this imported and built? Yep > Can you please go ahead and get this imported and built? I need it to > package python-responses I am already taking care of packaging python-responses [1] but there is a little problem [2]. I need it to package python-django-netjsongraph [3] and python-netdiff [4]. [1]: https://github.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/blob/master/python-responses.spec [2]: https://github.com/getsentry/responses/issues/95 [3]: https://github.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/blob/master/python-django-netjsongraph.spec [4]: https://github.com/Germano0/ninux-mesh-spec-files/blob/master/python-netdiff.spec > It'd also be good if there could be EPEL builds (as I have EPEL builds of > python-mwclient). Python 3 on EPEL is a bit of a complex topic ATM, so my > approach so far has just been to disable the py3 stuff for my packages on > EPEL, see e.g. > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/python-mimerender.git/tree/python- > mimerender.spec , note the with_python3 stuff. I will give a look to it to ensure EPEL support, thank you
Since upstream's being an asshole, I'm looking into the responses vs. coverage thing now.
adamwill's scratch build of python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12650692
adamwill's scratch build of python-cookies-2.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12650931
Per my comment on https://github.com/getsentry/responses/issues/95#issuecomment-173966435 , the tests seem to work just fine with coverage 4.x and py3.5, so if upstream still won't change it I'd suggest simply patching setup.py downstream to allow newer coverage. FWIW, though, my scratch build of python-cookies failed with tests enabled - that was http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12650692 .
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-cookies
(In reply to awilliam from comment #16) > Per my comment on > https://github.com/getsentry/responses/issues/95#issuecomment-173966435 , > the tests seem to work just fine with coverage 4.x and py3.5, so if upstream > still won't change it I'd suggest simply patching setup.py downstream to > allow newer coverage. Ok thank you > > FWIW, though, my scratch build of python-cookies failed with tests enabled - > that was http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12650692 . I am testing it. (In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #17) > Package request has been approved: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-cookies Thank you for your quick feedback
EPEL builds perfectly Package: python-cookies-2.2.1-1.el7 Status: complete Built by: germano ID: 713248 Started: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:49:25 UTC Finished: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 23:50:59 UTC
at a wild guess, perhaps pytest 2.8 considers 'no tests executed' to be a failure, but earlier pytests didn't? as I said, just a guess, going off the logs. deleting the tests then running setup.py test (so you get a test run with no tests) seems a bit pointless either way, anyhow. :)
python-cookies-2.2.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ead29a59ee
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc6e30ac17
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-deab0e244a
(In reply to awilliam from comment #20) > at a wild guess, perhaps pytest 2.8 considers 'no tests executed' to be a > failure, but earlier pytests didn't? as I said, just a guess, going off the > logs. deleting the tests then running setup.py test (so you get a test run > with no tests) seems a bit pointless either way, anyhow. :) Problem solved
python-cookies-2.2.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ead29a59ee
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-deab0e244a
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bc6e30ac17
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-cookies-2.2.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-cookies-2.2.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.