Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-magic-wormhole.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Get things from one computer to another, safely. This package provides a library and a command-line tool named wormhole, which makes it possible to get arbitrary-sized files and directories (or short pieces of text) from one computer to another. The two endpoints are identified by using identical "wormhole codes": in general, the sending machine generates and displays the code, which must then be typed into the receiving machine. The codes are short and human-pronounceable, using a phonetically-distinct wordlist. The receiving side offers tab-completion on the codewords, so usually only a few characters must be typed. Wormhole codes are single-use and do not need to be memorized. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31145070 The .spec file was generated by pyp2rpm and adapted by me - to fix building the docs, and to split out the main program from the python3 sub-package. It might take another few hours for all the dependencies to be included in the next rawhide compose (hkdf, spake2, txtorcon, magic-wormhole-mailbox-server, magic-wormhole-transit-relay python packages). Enabling the "local" repository for local mock builds should already work though (see the successful scratch build for rawhide).
This project source has a bundled versioneer library that is imported by setup.py. https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole/blob/0.11.2/versioneer.py Have you looked into packaging this as a build requirement or patching it out?
(In reply to Carl George from comment #1) > This project source has a bundled versioneer library that is imported by > setup.py. Yeah, I saw that. But I wouldn't consider that "bundling" in the fedora sense, since it's only used at build-time and doesn't end up in the binary RPMs at all. > https://github.com/warner/magic-wormhole/blob/0.11.2/versioneer.py > > Have you looked into packaging this as a build requirement or patching it > out? No, I didn't think about it. I mean, I *could* package the "versioneer" pypi package separately, but I'd rather not end up maintaining yet another package if I can avoid it.
- Fix this summary: Summary: Documentation for %%{name} Package otherwise 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* Expat License", "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 107 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-magic-wormhole /review-python-magic-wormhole/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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: python-magic-wormhole-doc (summary) [-]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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 magic- wormhole , python3-magic-wormhole , python-magic-wormhole-doc [?]: 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: magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python3-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-magic-wormhole-doc-0.11.2-1.fc30.noarch.rpm python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc30.src.rpm magic-wormhole.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wordlist -> word list, word-list, wordless magic-wormhole.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codewords -> code words, code-words, forewords magic-wormhole.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wormhole python3-magic-wormhole.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wordlist -> word list, word-list, wordless python3-magic-wormhole.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codewords -> code words, code-words, forewords python-magic-wormhole-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro Summary(C) %{name} python-magic-wormhole-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wordlist -> word list, word-list, wordless python-magic-wormhole-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codewords -> code words, code-words, forewords python-magic-wormhole.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wordlist -> word list, word-list, wordless python-magic-wormhole.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codewords -> code words, code-words, forewords 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Good catch! I'll fix that before import. Thanks a lot for the review!
python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cbd8bfcebb
python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-91b552ba80
python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.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-2018-91b552ba80
python-magic-wormhole-0.11.2-1.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-cbd8bfcebb
An update associated with this bug has been pushed to stable.