Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/hargonix/getmac/fedora-29-x86_64/00808305-python3-getmac/python3-getmac.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/hargonix/getmac/fedora-29-x86_64/00808305-python3-getmac/python3-getmac-0.6.0-0.src.rpm Description: Pure-python module to get the MAC address of remote hosts or network interfaces. It provides a platform-independent interface to get the MAC addresses of network interfaces on the local system(by interface name) and remote hosts on the local network (by IPv4/IPv6 address or host-name). Fedora Account System Username: hargonix
Also as this is my first package submission I am searching for sponsors.
Just a few comments: - Your `Release: 0` tag violates the versioning guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning i.e. you have to start with 1%{?dist} - Since the package is also available on PyPI it makes sense to use that as source, i.e. this simplifies your Source line like this (and makes it easier to maintain): Source0: %pypi_source - Your package name violates the current naming policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming i.e. you can rename the spec file to python-getmac and define a python3-getmac subpackage therein - AFAICT the rpm changelog is primarily for changes to your spec file - since the spec file actually exists, i.e. your spec file should just include one entry right now, i.e. something like: * Sat Oct 13 2018 Henrik Boeving <mail> - 0.6.0-1 - initial packaging
Ok, I fixed all of these. The only problem is that if i use the tar from pypi I get two errors saying python3-getmac.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/getmac/__main__.py /usr/bin/env python python3-getmac.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/getmac/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python Because the current Github version is out of date with the current pypi version. I already asked the maintainer of the package to update the pypi version. Should I still upload the SRPM and the new Specfile to copr and post the links here again?
Weird that the upstream doesn't use a new version number for this. You can patch simple stuff like this in the %build section. For example with: sed -i '1{/^#!\//d}' path/to/__main__.py
Reposting the fixed Specfile and SRPM: Specfile: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/hargonix/getmac/fedora-28-x86_64/00808993-python-getmac/python-getmac.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/hargonix/getmac/fedora-28-x86_64/00808993-python-getmac/python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
I got a question regarding the python2 version of this package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638434 As their source is equal, should I just add the python2 package as subpackage of this package?
A few months ago the answer would have been yes. But Python 2 support is now deprecated: > However the python2 stack will be removed from Fedora and is deprecated. > [..] Software using python2 MUST NOT be newly packaged without FESCo exception. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Python_Version_Support Thus, you should not add a python2 subpackage.
Ok, I closed it. Is there anything else that has to be changed for this package?
Renaming to python-getmac.
Package approved. You still need to find a sponsor. 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /python-getmac/review-python-getmac/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 20480 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]: 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 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]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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: python3-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Is there anything apart from the things suggested in the "How to get sponsored into the packager group" article you would suggest me to do?
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-getmac
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b719274ffd
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4c7dd563af
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-4c7dd563af
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-b719274ffd
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-getmac-0.6.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.