SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/pychromecast.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/pychromecast-0.7.7-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: Library for Python 2 and 3 to communicate with the Google Chromecast. It currently supports: - Auto discovering connected Chromecasts on the network - Start the default media receiver and play any online media - Control playback of current playing media - Implement Google Chromecast api v2 - Communicate with apps via channels - Easily extendable to add support for unsupported namespaces - Multi-room setups with Audio cast devices
I am not sure if we can use this name for the package. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Outdated_Python_package_naming_conventions 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 including the README file under %doc? Any comments on why you decided to use github instead of pypi for sources? I am just curious since you used pypi for the other python package.
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1) > I am not sure if we can use this name for the package. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging: > NamingGuidelines#Outdated_Python_package_naming_conventions The binary packages are called python2- and python3- so I don't see what the issue is.
Updated, spec as before SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/pychromecast-0.7.7-2.fc25.src.rpm
Please continue the review or should I get someone else to continue it?
Hi Peter, This is not a problem in this package, but I'd suggedt to be careful with wildcards in python3 packages, since sometimes your package may end up owning %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__, which belongs to system-python-libs spec file line 2 reads: %define with_tests 0 Guidelines sugest we use %global instead, as you can see in [1]. Note that this is not a must. The Summary tag ends with period a period. Please see [2]. After your feedback on those points I will consider this review done, sice the package looks good. We would still need to find a solution for bug 1392089 in order to include python2-zeroconf in fedora, since this bug depends on it. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
> spec file line 2 reads: > %define with_tests 0 > > Guidelines sugest we use %global instead, as you can see in [1]. Note that > this is not a must. > > The Summary tag ends with period a period. Please see [2]. Those two are minor quirks I would fix on commit. Do you want me to update them? > After your feedback on those points I will consider this review done, sice > the package looks good. > > We would still need to find a solution for bug 1392089 in order to include > python2-zeroconf in fedora, since this bug depends on it. I'll deal with that.
> Those two are minor quirks I would fix on commit. Do you want me to update > them? Not really, I trust you will address those. python2-zeroconf is still not in Fedora and bug 1392089 on which this bug depends on, might not solve the issue, as pointed out in that bug. I know you are an experienced packager and I do trust your judgement on how to solve the issue. The package looks good and this review is complete. Since all dependencies are not in Fedora yet, see [1] for reference. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#A_note_on_dependencies
Fixed those two points locally, requested maint on the other package
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/pychromecast
Pushed. Global and summary fixed. Thanks for the review!