Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-1.fc28.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136.spec Description: RFC 2136 DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot Fedora Account System Username: logic Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23275294
Looks like you accidentally switched Spec URL and SRPM URL. It should be Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-1.fc28.src.rpm (fedora-review tool depends on these to be correct)
Whoops. :( Sorry about that; it looks like your comment fixed the issue, at least with a quick test on my end.
Here's my informal review (disclaimer: I'm a newbie) Overall: Looks like author has put lot of effort into the package. Automatic fedora-review found no issues with the package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - In %install there is a comment about /usr/bin, but I don't see anything about this location in %files section. Am I missing something? - %description is same as Summary. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description it should expand on Summary. Not sure how important this is in practice. - Why are there exact versions listed in Requires and BuildRequires? I think a comment explaining this would be useful. - According to the packaging guidelines, separate -doc subpackage should be created in case of large documentation. This is not the case here. At the same time it makes sense not to duplicate the documentation if both python2 and python3 versions of tha package are installed. Not sure what is the right way here. - I don't see why fedora-review came up with "Note: Package contains font files". Is it because of sphinx_rtd_theme required by the docs? Maybe then there should be BuildRequires: python(3)-sphinx_rtd_theme ? ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/aivar/review-python-certbot-dns- rfc2136/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: 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]: 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 [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [?]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -certbot-dns-rfc2136 , python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136 , python-certbot- dns-rfc2136-doc [?]: 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. [?]: 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: python2-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc-0.19.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-1.fc26.src.rpm python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc/html/objects.inv python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc/html/objects.inv 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/certbot/certbot <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/certbot/certbot <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc/html/objects.inv python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc/html/objects.inv python2-certbot-dns-rfc2136.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/certbot/certbot <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-acme python3-certbot python3-dns python3-setuptools python3-zope-interface python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python2-certbot-dns-rfc2136 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python2-acme python2-certbot python2-dns python2-setuptools python2-zope-interface Provides -------- python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136: certbot-dns-rfc2136 python3-certbot-dns-rfc2136 python3.6dist(certbot-dns-rfc2136) python3dist(certbot-dns-rfc2136) python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc: python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-doc python2-certbot-dns-rfc2136: python-certbot-dns-rfc2136 python2-certbot-dns-rfc2136 python2.7dist(certbot-dns-rfc2136) python2dist(certbot-dns-rfc2136) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/c/certbot-dns-rfc2136/certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb47fb4cfd0ded5548411f5b1d9a50c6e8b834448e7fc5f341da34a86983de28 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb47fb4cfd0ded5548411f5b1d9a50c6e8b834448e7fc5f341da34a86983de28 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515554 Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Aivar Annamaa from comment #3) > - According to the packaging guidelines, separate -doc subpackage should be > created in case of large documentation. This is not the case here. This is probably misleading wording. The package did include the separate -doc subpackage. The "case" not being here is "large documentation".
(In reply to Aivar Annamaa from comment #3) > Here's my informal review (disclaimer: I'm a newbie) > - In %install there is a comment about /usr/bin, but I don't see anything > about this location in %files section. Am I missing something? This default used to be the default when pyp2rpm is used. It's not relevant here. > - %description is same as Summary. According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > it should expand on Summary. Not sure how important this is in practice. It's not a show stopper, but it would be good to make it longer. > - Why are there exact versions listed in Requires and BuildRequires? > I think a comment explaining this would be useful. It seems the version is the same as the package's version. Is that intentional or coincidence? If intentional, I'd use %{version} instead of the hardcoded value. > - According to the packaging guidelines, separate -doc subpackage should be > created in case of large documentation. This is not the case here. > At the same time it makes sense not to duplicate the documentation > if both python2 and python3 versions of tha package are installed. > Not sure what is the right way here. This is common practice with python packages. If the doc is not large, I'd say both ways a re possible. > - I don't see why fedora-review came up with "Note: Package contains font > files". That's because it's true. List the files (use `rpm -qpf <built_doc_package>.rpm`). the fonts should be unbundled. (It's tedious, but there are packages doing it. python-notebook does it, but not for documentation.) > Is it because of sphinx_rtd_theme required by the docs? > Maybe then there should be BuildRequires: python(3)-sphinx_rtd_theme ? I believe this is pulled by default by sphinx now (not 100% sure).
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5) > This default used to be the default when pyp2rpm is used. It's not relevant > here. I mean "This comment".
> In %install there is a comment about /usr/bin, but I don't see anything > about this location in %files section. Am I missing something? No, you're not missing anything, that's just boilerplate from pyp2rpm; in a package where a stub script would get installed in /usr/bin, the order of installation matters (the scripts from python2 will blow away the scripts from python3, and you have to take care to fix things up as-needed). That doesn't matter here, so I've yanked the text entirely. > %description is same as Summary. According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description > it should expand on Summary. Not sure how important this is in practice. This is just reflecting upstream; they didn't feel the need to elaborate beyond a one-line summary, so I just duplicated %summary. I snagged some additional verbiage from __init__.py for %description, that should help. > Why are there exact versions listed in Requires and BuildRequires? > I think a comment explaining this would be useful. This is because the plugins are pinned upstream to the version of certbot they're released with, and this is a straight machine-translation from setup.py to an RPM spec. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be packaging this at all, and instead it would be packaged along with certbot itself; since that didn't end up happening (and because upstream's packaging doesn't make that even remotely easy anyway), we're here. ;) I'll toss a comment along those lines at the top of the spec, if you think it'll help clarify how these plugins relate to the parent project. I'll also switch this to use %{version} instead of a hard-coded value. > According to the packaging guidelines, separate -doc subpackage should be > created in case of large documentation. This is not the case here. > At the same time it makes sense not to duplicate the documentation > if both python2 and python3 versions of tha package are installed. > Not sure what is the right way here. It's not large, but packaging is basically free, and there's no harm in de-duplication (and in the real world, most people aren't going to bother installing the -doc subpackage, but will likely refer to the certbot help output and online resources, given what it is that you actually do with this package. ;) That said, however... > I don't see why fedora-review came up with "Note: Package contains font files". > Is it because of sphinx_rtd_theme required by the docs? > Maybe then there should be BuildRequires: python(3)-sphinx_rtd_theme ? No, it's legitimately including fonts directly in the -doc subpackage, because of how sphinx generates the docs. :P Blargh, I didn't even notice that. Hmm, looking over other python packages for examples of what they've done here seems to suggest that most people just kill off the -doc subpackage entirely rather than mess with it (including the certbot parent package itself, which includes the sphinx build dependencies and then never actually uses them ;)). Even python-acme, which appears to have done a fair bit of work to try and work out something sensible here, has just %if 0'd the whole section out. So, unless there's a strong objection, I'll just yank the doc generation entirely, and revisit this post-review when I'm able to find some better examples of how to deal with existing font resources and sphinx-generated docs, especially given that the parent package doesn't include sphinx documentation either. Will update in a few minutes.
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc28.src.rpm Description: RFC 2136 DNS Authenticator plugin for Certbot Fedora Account System Username: logic Updated per comments. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23297314
All is good, package accepted.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-certbot-dns-rfc2136
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-80fbea10bc
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-d7608cc7b7
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2017-80fbea10bc
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-d7608cc7b7
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-certbot-dns-rfc2136-0.19.0-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
*** Bug 1526733 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Can this be pushed to EPEL 7 (and 6 if possible) as well please?