Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-responder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809160-python-multipart/python-multipart.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-responder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809160-python-multipart/python-multipart-0.0.5-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: python-multipart is an Apache2 licensed streaming multipart parser for Python. Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge
Doing an unofficial review!! Two things I noticed: Your Spec file appears to provide a python2 and python3 package, as you can read here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Python_Version_Support new software must not be packaged for python2 anymore. I am not exactly sure about the PyYAML requirement in line 50 as this section https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Dependencies says your dependencies must have python3- at the beginning.
> Your Spec file appears to provide a python2 and python3 package Yes it does, because I planned to request branches for this package for EPEL as well as older Fedora versions. There is a conditional to only enable the python2 subpackage on Fedora branches less than 30 (and on EPEL). I believe that section of the guidelines only applies to F30+ (python2 isn't deprecated on F28/F29). If it's a blocker I can change the conditional to only enable the python2 subpackage on EPEL, but I'd prefer to keep it. > I am not exactly sure about the PyYAML requirement That's the name of the package in RHEL, and I intend to package this for EPEL.
Let me put on my FPC hat. > Software using python2 MUST NOT be newly packaged without FESCo exception. The Packaging Guidelines apply to all versions of fedora, except where noted otherwise. So this sentence is quite unambiguous IMO. > Yes it does, because I planned to request branches for this package for EPEL as well as older Fedora versions. Either you have to drop the python2 packages for fedora, or request an exception by FESCo. You could use: "%if 0%{?rhel}" instead of "%if 0%{?fedora} < 30" to decide whether to build python2 subpackages. > That's the name of the package in RHEL, and I intend to package this for EPEL. Maybe, but the package must still comply with fedora's Packaging Guidelines if you want to build it on fedora too. Side note: BuildRequires: python3-devel is missing.
I changed the python2 conditional to only build on RHEL. The RHEL PyYAML only provides PyYAML and python-yaml, so it doesn't have a versioned name like the guidelines require. But I did find a python2-pyyaml dummy package that requires PyYAML, so I'll require that instead. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-responder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809794-python-multipart/python-multipart.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/python-responder/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00809794-python-multipart/python-multipart-0.0.5-2.fc30.src.rpm > Side note: BuildRequires: python3-devel is missing. Line 61 (64 of the first spec file) is `BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel`, which evaluates to python3-devel on Fedora and python34-devel on EPEL.
Package approved. 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: "*No copyright* Apache License", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-multipart /review-python-multipart/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]: 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. [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. [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: python3-multipart-0.0.5-2.fc30.noarch.rpm python-multipart-0.0.5-2.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-multipart
python-multipart-0.0.5-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6171cdaa5e
python-multipart-0.0.5-2.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-2018-6171cdaa5e
python-multipart-0.0.5-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.