Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ktdreyer/python-importlib-resources/epel8/python-importlib-resources.spec SRPM: https://ktdreyer.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-importlib-resources-1.0.2-1.el8.src.rpm Description: importlib_resources is a backport of Python 3.7's standard library importlib.resources module for 3.4 through 3.6. Users of Python 3.7 and beyond should use the standard library module, since for these versions, importlib_resources just delegates to that module. Note that we don't need this package in Fedora, only in epel8. I only plan to maintain this for epel8, since we have Python 3.6 there.
FAS username: ktdreyer epel8 scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38996400
Here are the current package review guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ Here is an easy way to start reviewing this package: "fedora-review -b 1772578"
Whoops, that fedora-review command should include the flag for EPEL 8. Here's the correct command to run: "fedora-review -b 1772578 -m epel-8-x86_64"
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: "Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/branto/1772578-python-importlib- resources/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. [-]: 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 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: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 python3-importlib-resources [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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-importlib-resources-1.0.2-1.el8.noarch.rpm python-importlib-resources-doc-1.0.2-1.el8.noarch.rpm python-importlib-resources-1.0.2-1.el8.src.rpm python3-importlib-resources.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker python-importlib-resources-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C importlib_resources documentation python-importlib-resources.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backport -> back port, back-port, backpacker 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python-importlib-resources-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C importlib_resources documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warning. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/importlib_resources/importlib_resources-1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d3279fd0f6f847cced9f7acc19bd3e5df54d34f93a2e7bb5f238f81545787078 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3279fd0f6f847cced9f7acc19bd3e5df54d34f93a2e7bb5f238f81545787078 Requires -------- python3-importlib-resources (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-importlib-resources-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-importlib-resources: python3-importlib-resources python3.6dist(importlib-resources) python3dist(importlib-resources) python-importlib-resources-doc: python-importlib-resources-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1772578 -m epel-8-x86_64 Buildroot used: epel-8-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, Java, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-importlib-resources
This was imported for EPEL (Python 3.6) only. I'd like it to stay that way. There is importlib.resources in the standard library since Python3.7, this is just a backport, please, don't package it for Fedora (as it seems to be the the intention).
> (as it seems to be the the intention) I meant to say that it seems the intention was to package it for EPEL only and I agree with that.
This package was pushed to EPEL 8: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0e7c02b5ab Can this ticket be closed?
sure
@mhroncok Need to resurrect the issue with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772578#c6. I have encountered an issue `MultiplexedPath` is wrong in all versions of Python<3.12, so even though `importlib.resources` is available in Python>3.6, we might still need the latest versions in order to backport fixes to the implementation. Another example is `importlib.metadata` where `importlib.metadata.entry_points` does not have `.select` interface in Python<3.12 Suggestion is to allow these packages to be packaged on Fedora as well. Pinging @kdreyer as well.
No Fedora has Python<3.12.
But what about any fixes/changes that are introduced in importlib_resources>=6.0 which correspond to Python3.13 [1], for example [2]. What I'm trying to say is that this package should not be treated any differently from `importlib_metadata` or `typing_extensions`. Regarding Python<3.12, this is still needed for EPEL9. [1]: https://pypi.org/project/importlib-resources/ [2]: https://github.com/python/importlib_resources/blob/main/NEWS.rst#bugfixes-2
(In reply to Cristian Le from comment #12) > But what about any fixes/changes that are introduced in > importlib_resources>=6.0 which correspond to Python3.13 [1], for example > [2]. What I'm trying to say is that this package should not be treated any > differently from `importlib_metadata` or `typing_extensions`. I see. You explicitly mentioned Python<3.12. I guess it's unavoidable to introduce it if upstreams depend on it :/ > Regarding Python<3.12, this is still needed for EPEL9. Yeah, for EPEL, it makes perfect sense.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days