Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit-0.9-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Flit is a simple way to put Python packages and modules on PyPI. Flit only creates packages in the new 'wheel' format. People using older versions of pip (<1.5) or easy_install will not be able to install them. Flit packages a single importable module or package at a time, using the import name as the name on PyPI. All subpackages and data files within a package are included automatically. Flit requires Python 3, but you can use it to distribute modules for Python 2, so long as they can be imported on Python 3. Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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 apache is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text IGNORE: package contains license file ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379094-python-flit/licensecheck.txt flit-0.9/flit/logo.py under ASL 2.0 license flit-0.9/flit/upload.py under PSF license Most of the sources file are devoid of this information. Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. flit-0.9/flit/logo.py flit-0.9/flit/upload.py Please, add: "Provides: bundled(foo) = fooversion" [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. [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. 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]: 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]: 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 [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Available: 0.9 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: 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. [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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-flit-0.9-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-flit-0.9-1.fc26.src.rpm python3-flit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python3-flit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flit python-flit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python-flit.src:35: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: line 9) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-flit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python3-flit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- python3-flit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-docutils python3-pypandoc python3-requests Provides -------- python3-flit: python3-flit Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/takluyver/flit/archive/0.9/flit-0.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19f7ef05e0b63b32996e9d7b14a5c8d2d01532628a5413b16015cb5f7e7e44b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19f7ef05e0b63b32996e9d7b14a5c8d2d01532628a5413b16015cb5f7e7e44b9 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1379094 --plugins Python -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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
Issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379094-python-flit/licensecheck.txt flit-0.9/flit/logo.py under ASL 2.0 license flit-0.9/flit/upload.py under PSF license Most of the sources file are devoid of this information. Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. flit-0.9/flit/logo.py flit-0.9/flit/upload.py Please, add: "Provides: bundled(foo) = fooversion" NON bloccking issues: [!]: Latest version is packaged. Available: 0.9 Please, fix also these rpmlint problem: python3-flit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python3-flit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flit python-flit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages python-flit.src:35: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: line 9)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > Issues: > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", > "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output > of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379094-python-flit/licensecheck.txt > > flit-0.9/flit/logo.py under ASL 2.0 license > flit-0.9/flit/upload.py under PSF license > Most of the sources file are devoid of this information. > Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or > content/s, and add license headers > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > flit-0.9/flit/logo.py > flit-0.9/flit/upload.py > Please, add: "Provides: bundled(foo) = fooversion" > > Please, fix also these rpmlint problem: > python3-flit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> > sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages > python3-flit.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary flit > python-flit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub > packages, sub-packages, prepackages > python-flit.src:35: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: > line 9)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > > Issues: > > > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", > > "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output > > of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379094-python-flit/licensecheck.txt > > > > flit-0.9/flit/logo.py under ASL 2.0 license > > flit-0.9/flit/upload.py under PSF license > > Most of the sources file are devoid of this information. > > Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or > > content/s, and add license headers > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > > > > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > flit-0.9/flit/logo.py > > flit-0.9/flit/upload.py > > Please, add: "Provides: bundled(foo) = fooversion" > > e.g. # https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tornado # ./flit/logo.py Provides: bundled(python-tornado) = ...? # ./flit/upload.py Provides: bundled(python?) = ...?
Could not get to these today ... sorry about the delay. As far as bundled goes, flit is not really bundling the entire tornado library - is it still necessary to add provides for bundled? to me it seems unnecessary .. thoughts?
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > Could not get to these today ... sorry about the delay. No problems, thanks for your work > As far as bundled goes, flit is not really bundling the entire tornado > library - is it still necessary to add provides for bundled? Unfortunately, that's the way it is ... that pain in ... Sorry
Looking at the source code of both upload.py and log.py, we can call it more of a fork rather than bundled really ... Even looking at history of the file. python-tornado - log.py https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/blob/master/tornado/log.py python-flit - log.py https://github.com/takluyver/flit/blob/master/flit/log.py As for upload.py, it is *based* on python-distutils. Looking at the source, I do not *think* it is bundled here ... Can you please check? Thanks!
Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit-0.9-2.fc24.src.rpm Assuming the bundling issue is sorted out, other issues should be fixed with this spec & srpm.
> Most of the sources file are devoid of this information. > Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or > content/s, and add license headers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Is still valid (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7) > Looking at the source code of both upload.py and log.py, we can call it more > of a fork rather than bundled really ... Even looking at history of the file. This is a practice commonly used, to modify the original code to fit better for their own purposes Please, add: this comment near to license field # ./flit/logo.py under ASL 2.0 license # ./flit/upload.py under PSF license and # https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tornado # ./flit/logo.py unkown version Provides: bundled(python-tornado) > As for upload.py, it is *based* on python-distutils. Looking at the source, > I do not *think* it is bundled here ... OK
As shown in the package for entrypoints [1], `flit` will attempt to verify PyPI classifiers while building packages. This is great for PyPI, but kind of useless for us, because we're generally pulling tagged releases that managed to make it to PyPI, and I don't think Fedora uses the classifiers for anything, anyway. It's probably not good to have to re-create that work on every package using `flit`. I'm not sure if it should be a macro provided by this package, or whether this package should provide a cache of the classifier list in a system location. Or maybe we can just ask `flit` developers to add a `--no-verify-classifiers` sort of option. Just something to think about; maybe ask the Python SIG. [1] https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-entrypoints/python-entrypoints.spec
Done! Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit-0.9-3.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #10) > As shown in the package for entrypoints [1], `flit` will attempt to verify > PyPI classifiers while building packages. This is great for PyPI, but kind > of useless for us, because we're generally pulling tagged releases that > managed to make it to PyPI, and I don't think Fedora uses the classifiers > for anything, anyway. > > It's probably not good to have to re-create that work on every package using > `flit`. I'm not sure if it should be a macro provided by this package, or > whether this package should provide a cache of the classifier list in a > system location. Or maybe we can just ask `flit` developers to add a > `--no-verify-classifiers` sort of option. > > Just something to think about; maybe ask the Python SIG. > > [1] > https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python- > entrypoints/python-entrypoints.spec Probably a good idea in general. At this point, entrypoints is the only package using flit in fedora (I think) ... but, this would be an issue as more packages start using it. I do like --no-verify option request. Perhaps I can submit an RFE ...
Thanks for the review, gil.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-flit
built on rawhide.