Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python2-dns.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python2-dns-1.16.0-13.fc32.src.rpm Description: dnspython is a DNS toolkit for Python. It supports almost all record types. It can be used for queries, zone transfers, and dynamic updates. It supports TSIG authenticated messages and EDNS0. dnspython provides both high and low level access to DNS. The high level classes perform queries for data of a given name, type, and class, and return an answer set. The low level classes allow direct manipulation of DNS zones, messages, names, and records. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar Because some packages with Fesco exceptions still depend on python2-dns [0][1] and the latest version does not support Python 2 anymore [2], I've decided to split the python-dns to python-dns (python3-dns RPM) and python2-dns. The component python2-dns already exists for epels [3] so I'll request to unretire it for rawhide. [0] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2312 [1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2266 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849341 [3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-dns
releng issue: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9622
> Disable dependency generator until it has test code What does "until it has test code" mean? > Patch0: unicode_label_escapify.patch > Patch1: collections_abc.patch > Patch2: base64.patch > Patch3: switch_to_python_cryptography.patch It might be a good idea to shortly explain what do the patches do. For example collections_abc.patch and base64.patch seem useless on Python 2. Similarly, switch_to_python_cryptography.patch seems like moot because there is no python2-cryptography on Fedora 33. > %{python2_sitelib}/%{py_package_name} > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info Consider adding trailing slashes to assert those are directories.
Well, my intention was to keep this package as similar as possible to not introduce any breakage during the split but if you insist on the mentioned changes, I can definitely implement them.
I don't insist.
> > Patch0: unicode_label_escapify.patch > > Patch1: collections_abc.patch > > Patch2: base64.patch > > Patch3: switch_to_python_cryptography.patch > > It might be a good idea to shortly explain what do the patches do. > > For example collections_abc.patch and base64.patch seem useless on Python 2. These two removed. > Similarly, switch_to_python_cryptography.patch seems like moot because there > is no python2-cryptography on Fedora 33. python2-dns has no DNSSEC support but it's still better to depend on cryptography than cryptodomex. > > > %{python2_sitelib}/%{py_package_name} > > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info > > Consider adding trailing slashes to assert those are directories. Done.
The license should be "ISC and MIT", see the LICENSE file. Looks good otherwise. Same gors for python3-dns, should I open a bug for it?
License fixed and spec/srpm reuploaded. python3-dns updated here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dns/pull-request/6
Thank you! Package APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Fedora-review Issues: ===================== - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python2.7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ (Has a FESCo exception) - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-dns See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names (Expected; this replaces the existing package) ===== 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. [X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 11 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [X]: 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). [X]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: 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: python2-dns-1.16.0-13.fc33.noarch.rpm python2-dns-1.16.0-13.fc33.src.rpm python2-dns.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnspython -> python python2-dns.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dns/py.typed python2-dns.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnspython -> python 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. python2-dns.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnspython -> python python2-dns.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.dnspython.org <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> python2-dns.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/dns/py.typed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.dnspython.org/kits/1.16.0/dnspython-1.16.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4bf5c5c12a4478ee7860ab176659cf64c4899ee76752d826b082f8af723c5cf9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4bf5c5c12a4478ee7860ab176659cf64c4899ee76752d826b082f8af723c5cf9 Requires -------- python2-dns (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python2-dns: python2-dns python2.7dist(dnspython) python2dist(dnspython) Template generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1859891 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, PHP, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Petr Viktorin from comment #6) > The license should be "ISC and MIT", see the LICENSE file. Side note: Packages with combined licenses are required to contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. In this case, I'd say something like: # The entire package is licensed with both licenses, see LICENSE file
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0895e64716