Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/python-google-auth.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/python-google-auth-1.1.1-2.el7.src.rpm Description: Google Auth Python Library Fedora Account System Username: jmontleon
- Py 2 is deprecated in Fedora, add a conditional to not build it. Also use %bcond_with/%bcond_without for this and Py3.
- Build the docs with Sphinx. Use the archive from Github instead of pypi for this. - Run the tests if possible
It looks like amoralej added changes in 1.1.1-2 to use %bcond_with/%bcond_without and disable python2 builds in Fedora (30+) for 1636936. I'll update the proposed spec/package Monday with these changes. As for docs it looks like the sphinx conf.py requires an extension called sphinx_docstring_typing and I don't see that it's packaged. Is it available somewhere and I am missing it? And if it's not I have zero interest in packaging it, so appreciate a suggestion on building without it, or alternate path. I am guessing the pypi tarball was used because v1.1.1 is not tagged and not super easily found/downloaded in the Github repo. I did find the commit though, df60b5cc8826b411d3173048df41c5db5677fcdb and can build fine using https://github.com/googleapis/google-auth-library-python/archive/%{hash}.tar.gz if that's preferred for some reason. https://github.com/googleapis/google-auth-library-python/blob/df60b5cc8826b411d3173048df41c5db5677fcdb/docs/conf.py#L40 Same applies to tests for pytest_localserver.http and grpcio. I don't see these packages. And maybe flask for EPEL (python2-fedora-flask-0.10.0-1 actually provides this).
Ok, but latest version is 1.6.1 though.
1.6.1 requires pyasn1-modules 0.2.1 https://github.com/googleapis/google-auth-library-python/blob/master/setup.py#L22 The the pyasn1-modules package version is deceptive because it's a sub-package of python-pyasn1 and does not reflect the actual version of the modules, which is 0.1.5 $ rpm -q python3-pyasn1-modules-0.3.7-4.fc29.noarch -l /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyasn1_modules /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyasn1_modules-0.1.5-py3.7.egg-info The reason this package has an epoch is because we had to downgrade it from the 1.3.0 package that was at one time built for Fedora and did not work because of the older version of pyasn1-modules. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577286
Fedora Rawhide has pyasn1-modules 0.2.2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyasn1/c/fb396a2d3cb8be994a0cb54200e6ab308172d99b?branch=master You could ask the maintainer to backport to F29 if you need it.
How does that help with EPEL 7, which this BZ is for branching the package to? python-pyasn1(-modules) is a part of RHEL/Centos Base. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/7/os/x86_64/Packages/python2-pyasn1-modules-0.1.9-7.el7.noarch.rpm
The only way i could get this working in the past for CentOS7 in RDO was using 1.1.1 (as you explained because of the pyasn1 issue). I'd use that for EPEL.
http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/python-google-auth.spec http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/python-google-auth-1.1.1-3.el7.src.rpm Using %bcond_with/%bcond_without and github archive.
For EPEL, you should use python%{python3_pkgversion} instead of python3. For Fedora use the latest version. 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]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-google- auth/review-python-google-auth/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. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [?]: 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]: 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: python-google-auth-1.1.1-3.el7.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Thank you, http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/python-google-auth.spec is updated to use python%{python3_pkgversion} for EPEL For EPEL I get: python2-google-auth-1.1.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm python34-google-auth-1.1.1-4.el7.noarch.rpm python-google-auth-1.1.1-4.el7.src.rpm For Fedora I get: python2-google-auth-1.1.1-4.fc29.noarch.rpm python3-google-auth-1.1.1-4.fc29.noarch.rpm python-google-auth-1.1.1-4.fc29.src.rpm (S)RPMS available here: http://people.redhat.com/jmontleo/pk-epel/ Do I need to do anything else to get the dist-git repo branched?
The process to get a package in epel7 is in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL. Just need to run fedpkg request-branch epel7. I've just requested it for this package: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9326
the brach is ready, you can push the spec to it and build it
Hi Jason, could you please fulfill Alfredo's comments? I'd do that myself, but as with the remaining patches only the reporter is allowed to handle branches
Sorry for the delay, I just returned from PTO this morning. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31917983 I also requested the new branch for python-kubernetes https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9397