SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16290711
Would you use the template on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file? It would really improve readability with all those macros set there. As pointed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist , %python_provide macro must be used. Are there any reasons for not running upstream's test suite under %check? I see there's one here https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf/blob/master/test_zeroconf.py Also, are there any reasons for not including the README file under %doc?
There are also some missing Requires:
*** Bug 1395341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #2) > There are also some missing Requires: Feel free to actually list them explicitly, I'll get back to this next week, I've been dealing with f25 release so that's taken priority.
SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-2.fc25.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16708202
Please continue the review or should I get someone else to continue it?
Hi Peter, I am sorry for the delay here, I have been travelling in the past few weeks and probably missed the emails on this bug. Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090 We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. I believe the former would be preferred, and if you agree, I would even contact the maintainer and send him a patch to include python2-zeroconf. Else, here is the review of the package: I only found 2 issues here: 1 - the python3-zeroconf owns /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/__pycache__ which belongs to system-python-libs. This issue appears in a few python3 packages when we use wildcards like %{python3_sitelib}/* Since the python3 subpackage would be removed, this should be ignored. 2 - spec file line 2 reads: %define with_tests 0 Guidelines sugest we use %global instead, as you can see in [2]. Note that this is not a must. Other than that, the python2 package would be ready, if that's how you'd like to proceed. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zeroconf/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
> Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] > > python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the > maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a > python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090 That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence. > We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to > the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, > remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR
(In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #8) > > Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] > > > That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence. Yes, they probably forgot to check bugzilla for a review request before submitting it... maybe we should have a bot checking for duplicated review requests. > > We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to > > the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, > > remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. > > No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a python2-zeroconf subpackage.
> OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I > suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a > python2-zeroconf subpackage. I will, I've requested co-maintainer, if they don't respond in a reasonable time I'll just push my needed changes anyway. Marking as duplicate even though it should be the other way around. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1401337 ***