So, the biggest thing I note is one you're on upstream already but don't mention anywhere in the spec:

https://github.com/nikipore/stompest/pull/54

that is not merged, and without it, a large chunk of this library is problematic on Python 3.7+ (due to being called 'async', which is a reserved keyword from Python 3.7 on)...which is what we have in all supported Fedoras.

What's your take on this? Should we backport that PR? Do something else?

rpmlint on the SRPM:

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

🎉🎉🎉

Package builds successfully on F31 and passes tests, with some warnings:

=============================== warnings summary ===============================
stompest/protocol/failover.py:40
  /builddir/build/BUILD/stompest-2.3.0/stompest/protocol/failover.py:40: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \.
    _REGEX_LOCALHOST_IPV4 = re.compile('^127\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+$')

stompest/protocol/failover.py:143
  /builddir/build/BUILD/stompest-2.3.0/stompest/protocol/failover.py:143: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \d
    _REGEX_URI = re.compile('^(?P<protocol>(tcp|ssl))://(?P<host>[^:]+):(?P<port>\d+)$')

stompest/protocol/failover.py:144
  /builddir/build/BUILD/stompest-2.3.0/stompest/protocol/failover.py:144: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \(
    _REGEX_BRACKETS = re.compile('^\((?P<uri>.+)\)$')

stompest/tests/parser_test.py:294
  /builddir/build/BUILD/stompest-2.3.0/stompest/tests/parser_test.py:294: DeprecationWarning: invalid escape sequence \c
    for badCharacter in (b'\r', b'\n', b'\c', b'\\', b':', b'\\h'):

-- Docs: https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/warnings.html
==================== 72 passed, 4 warnings in 2.15 seconds =====================

rpmlint on the binary package:

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

🎉🎉🎉

Yeah, it's a mess, I hope somebody will step up to maintain stompest. It's the least unmaintained STOMP library for python I could find that has async support.
I think it would be best to backport the renaming PR, since upstream has agreed it should be renamed to "twisted".

OK, so please do that, I don't think we should land the package in a state where it's using a reserved keyword :)

Ping?

I tried that today but the patch only applies to the repo's HEAD, which is not the latest released version. I'm considering shipping the HEAD, since a release is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

I don't see any problem with shipping HEAD if it works.

OK, I'm shipping HEAD:

Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest.spec
SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest-2.3.0-1.715f358.fc32.src.rpm

Versioning is wrong:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots

should be 2.3.0-1.20191017git715f358.fc32 (or whatever the actual date of the snapshot is). Other than that I think this is looking good.

Oh, right, I'm not used to shipping snapshots, thanks. Updated.

Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest.spec
SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest-2.3.0-1.20191018git715f358.fc30.src.rpm

OK, on formal review:

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

[adamw@adam Downloads]$ rpmlint python-stompest-2.3.0-1.20191018git715f358.fc30.src.rpm
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{pypi_name}
python-stompest.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 23: %{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error 
python-stompest.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 23: %{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
[adamw@adam Downloads]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-31-x86_64/result/*noarch*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

(It would be good to fix those up, but I don't think they need to block review).

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[-] MUST: 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 must be included in %license.

Please fix this - the source does contain LICENSE, so the package must ship it.

[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[NA] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[+] MUST: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated.

So if you just add the license file to the package we're good to go. Thanks!

Thanks, the LICENSE file is indeed in the snapshot, but it wasn't in the released tarballs. Updated.

Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest.spec
SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-stompest/python-stompest-2.3.0-1.20191018git715f358.fc30.src.rpm

OK, so with that let's call this approved! Thanks.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-stompest

Package available in repos