Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-prompt-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00803609-python-prompt-toolkit/python-prompt-toolkit.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-prompt-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00803609-python-prompt-toolkit/python-prompt-toolkit-2.0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: prompt_toolkit is a library for building powerful interactive command lines and terminal applications in Python. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge This re-review is a rename of from the existing python-prompt_toolkit. Upstream uses both a dash (GitHub repo name) and an underscore (PyPI) in different places. Based on the guidelines [0] the package could use either, but I would prefer to switch to a dash. [0]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming#Separators
- You need to add the corresponding Provides: # renamed from python2-prompt_toolkit Obsoletes: python2-prompt_toolkit < 1.0.15-3 Provides: python2-prompt_toolkit = %{version}-%{release} # renamed from python3-prompt_toolkit Obsoletes: python3-prompt_toolkit < 1.0.15-3 Provides: python3-prompt_toolkit = %{version}-%{release} 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 265 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-prompt-toolkit /review-python-prompt-toolkit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 143360 bytes in 6 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2 -prompt-toolkit , python3-prompt-toolkit [?]: 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. [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: python2-prompt-toolkit-2.0.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-prompt-toolkit-2.0.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-prompt-toolkit-2.0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I was under the impression that provides are not necessary. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F Seeing as this rename also involved a backwards-incompatible version bump (and is only going into rawhide), I decided that doing a clean break would be a better option.
This page applies to font packages only apparently.
It's sleep-time here. I'll approve the package but please deal with the issue accordingly.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that was for fonts only. I don't mind adding the provides. I'm going to pause on this however, there may be a need to split python2-prompt-toolkit out and keep that on 1.x.x and let python3-prompt-toolkit move on to 2.x.x.
Yeah that looks to be the best path forward. I've removed the python2 subpackage and added the necessary provides. Here they are in case you want to review. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-prompt-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00804822-python-prompt-toolkit/python-prompt-toolkit.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-prompt-toolkit/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00804822-python-prompt-toolkit/python-prompt-toolkit-2.0.5-1.fc30.src.rpm
LGTM.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-prompt-toolkit
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1149225