Spec URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker.spec SRPM URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker-2.7.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23997385 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/carlwgeorge/python3-docker/ Description: It lets you do anything the docker command does, but from within Python apps – run containers, manage containers, manage Swarms, etc. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge This package is similar to the Fedora python-docker package, but is for EPEL's Python 3 stack. A separate SRPM is necessary due to conflicts with python-docker-py in RHEL.
I changed the product to "Fedora EPEL" because in another review fedrepo-req complained about it. However, it appears changing that hides this review from https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html. Changing it back for now until it's reviewed.
> This package is similar to the Fedora python-docker package, but is for EPEL's Python 3 stack. A separate SRPM is necessary due to conflicts with python-docker-py in RHEL. Is this really the case? You could set up the Fedora package to purge the Python 2 subpackage for EPEL7 target (%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?epel})...
The EPEL Python 3 proposal [1] (not sure if this was converted into guidelines somewhere) specifically says that packages in RHEL get a new python3-<name> SRPM. That said, the reason is conflicting SRPM names, and in this case since the name changed from python-docker-py to python-docker in Fedora there would be no conflict. RHEL: python-docker-py -> python-docker-py EPEL: python-docker -> python34-docker While this seems technically possible, it doesn't really offer a strong enough benefit to diverge from the norm. Additionally, if RHEL later renames the package then the SRPM conflict pops back up. They already renamed it once from docker-python to python-docker-py. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
- Be a bit more specific in %files: %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname} %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egginfo - Why don't you run the tests provided? 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 109 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-docker/review- python3-docker/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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-docker-2.7.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> - Be a bit more specific in %files: Fixed locally, will be in my next spec file upload. > - Why don't you run the tests provided? Because python34-pytest is older than the minimum version in the Rawhide spec file. I'll see if I can get it to run anyways. While looking into the pytest stuff I realized that python34-requests is only at 2.12.3, but upstream requires 2.14.2 or higher. I need to sort that out before we proceed. I can probably just patch setup.py to reduce that, but I need test it first.
Ok, package is approved.
Confirmed that the test suite uses pytest.deprecated_call() as a context manager, which wasn't added to pytest until 2.9.0 [1], so I won't be able to enable that. Still investigating the requests minimum version. [1]: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/commit/beaa8e55bd6453a929c458570678c4d4b0d4bed3
I decided that the safest path forward is to use the previous upstream version (2.6.1) from before they bumped the minimum requests requirement. I was also able to isolate the pytest issue and get the test suite to run. Spec URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker.spec SRPM URL: https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/python3-docker-2.6.1-1.el7.centos.src.rpm If at some point python34-requests is updated then I'll revist updating this package to it's latest version. I know you already approved this, but I'll wait a bit in case you want to look over the latest spec file.
Still ok for me.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-docker. You may commit to the branch "epel7" in about 10 minutes.
Thanks Robert! https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python3-docker-2.6.1-1.el7