Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyrpm.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: python-rpm-spec is a Python module for parsing RPM spec files. RPMs are build from a package's sources along with a spec file. The spec file controls how the RPM is built. This module allows you to parse spec files and gives you simple access to various bits of information that is contained in the spec file.python-rpm-spec is a Python module for parsing RPM spec files. RPMs are build from a package's sources along with a spec file. The spec file controls how the RPM is built. This module allows you to parse spec files and gives you simple access to various bits of information that is contained in the spec file. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33784491
I can take this review (unless I need extra permissions besides the normal packager ones - fas name: gsauthof).
Ok, my first round of review feedback: The python3-pip build dependency looks superfluous. The python3-flit build dependency isn't strictly necessary. I mean the archive from PyPi includes a setup.py and thus we could use that instead. For example like this: --- python-pyrpm.spec.orig 2019-03-28 14:47:24.842994924 +0100 +++ python-pyrpm.spec 2019-03-28 16:04:34.998208523 +0100 @@ -10,12 +10,10 @@ License: MIT URL: https://github.com/bkircher/python-rpm-spec -Source0: %url/archive/%{version}/%{reponame}-%{version}.tar.gz +Source0: %pypi_source %{reponame} BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel -BuildRequires: python3-flit -BuildRequires: python3-pip %if %{with tests} BuildRequires: python3-pytest %endif @@ -41,11 +39,11 @@ %prep %autosetup -n %{reponame}-%{version} +%build +%py3_build %install -export PYTHONUSERBASE=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} -export FLIT_NO_NETWORK=1 -flit install --deps none +%py3_install %if %{with tests} @@ -58,7 +56,7 @@ %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG.md README.md examples/ %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name} -%{python3_sitelib}/python_rpm_spec-%{version}.dist-info +%{python3_sitelib}/python_rpm_spec-*-py*.egg-info %changelog The description text is duplicated between the source package and sub-package. It makes sense to de-duplicate it with a macro, e.g.: %global common_description %{expand: ... the desc ... } ... %description %{common_description}
I didn't notice the Pypi source was using setuptools, Flit is a pain in the buttock which doesn't even support specifying the install folder. Flit needs Pip, that's why I added it. I will update as you say.
New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyrpm.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc31.src.rpm
The .spec in the .src.rpm is still the old one. Can you update it?
Everything looks good now. I approve the package. I based my review on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ on the relevant packaging guidelines. Some output from fedora-review follows: (I marked the points I manually reviewed with +, also manually marked some points with - and ?) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [+]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: 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". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gms/program/copr- fedora/python-pyrpm/review/review-python-pyrpm/licensecheck.txt [+]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [+]: Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: 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 [+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [+]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [+]: 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 30720 bytes in 8 files. [+]: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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: [+]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [+]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [+]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [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. [+]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [+]: Package functions as described. [+]: Latest version is packaged. [+]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+]: %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: 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-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc29.noarch.rpm python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc29.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-pyrpm.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/bkircher/python-rpm-spec <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. GS: URL is ok, no net access in mock environment Requires -------- python3-pyrpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-pyrpm: python3-pyrpm python3.7dist(python-rpm-spec) python3dist(python-rpm-spec) Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/python-rpm-spec/python-rpm-spec-0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9eca9aa22a0301f3065d6028efb88503bbd343789bb1d3143cf569db1524f696 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9eca9aa22a0301f3065d6028efb88503bbd343789bb1d3143cf569db1524f696 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-pyrpm Buildroot used: fedora-29-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyrpm
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-03e9f3eb72
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e563b2436e
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-03e9f3eb72
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.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-2019-e563b2436e
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-pyrpm-0.8-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.