Bug 1888345 - Review Request: python-hbmqtt - MQTT client/broker
Summary: Review Request: python-hbmqtt - MQTT client/broker
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-10-14 16:01 UTC by Fabian Affolter
Modified: 2022-09-17 14:57 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-09-17 14:57:34 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Fabian Affolter 2020-10-14 16:01:06 UTC
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hbmqtt.spec
SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc33.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/beerfactory/hbmqtt

Description:
HBMQTT is an open source MQTT client and broker implementation.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53456032

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc33.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint python*-hbmqtt* 
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_pub
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_sub
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab

Comment 1 Andy Mender 2020-10-14 18:46:59 UTC
Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
     Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the Sphinx 
     HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/
     I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be 
     bundled with non-font packages.

Full review below:
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/
- 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.
  Note: License file license.rst.txt is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
  Review: I think this is a RestructuredText template file, correct?
  The warning can probably be ignored.

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 98 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-hbmqtt/python-
     hbmqtt/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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
     Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the Sphinx 
     HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/
     I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be 
     bundled with non-font packages.
[-]: 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-hbmqtt
     Review: This is usually not necessary, but adding a 
     Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release} line to the -doc
     subpackage might be useful
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-hbmqtt-doc-0.9.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          python-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_pub
python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_sub
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: no installed packages by name python3-hbmqtt
(none): E: no installed packages by name python-hbmqtt-doc
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hbmqtt/hbmqtt-0.9.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6764d3c7cf6d056238c04709c23dbb72e2b0227495efd871c2f1da10a4472cd9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6764d3c7cf6d056238c04709c23dbb72e2b0227495efd871c2f1da10a4472cd9


Requires
--------
python3-hbmqtt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3.9dist(docopt)
    python3.9dist(passlib)
    python3.9dist(pyyaml)
    python3.9dist(setuptools)
    python3.9dist(transitions)
    python3.9dist(websockets)

python-hbmqtt-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
python3-hbmqtt:
    python-hbmqtt
    python3-hbmqtt
    python3.9-hbmqtt
    python3.9dist(hbmqtt)
    python3dist(hbmqtt)

python-hbmqtt-doc:
    python-hbmqtt-doc

Comment 2 Fabian Affolter 2020-11-26 10:08:35 UTC
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package:
> [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
>      Note: Package contains font files
>      Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the
> Sphinx 
>      HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/
>      I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be 
>      bundled with non-font packages.

Only way to avoid this is to not ship the docs. I'm wondering why this doesn't happen for other packages which depends sphinx-rtd-theme as the config for the docs looks pretty "standard".

Comment 3 Andy Mender 2020-11-26 14:00:52 UTC
> Only way to avoid this is to not ship the docs. I'm wondering why this doesn't happen for other packages which depends sphinx-rtd-theme as the config for the docs looks pretty "standard".

Some packages which generate Sphinx docs bundle font files like Font Awesome and some don't. Some also download extra artifacts during the doc building process. I think it's often overlooked by upstream, because unless packaged, neither is an issue which prevents direct software usage.

I think we have the following options:
1. Remove the docs in the %build stage and not package them at all.
2. Remove the font files and link them in from system font packages. Below are the ones used in python-hbmqtt:
- google-roboto-slab-fonts
- fontawesome-fonts-web (probably also: fontawesome-fonts)
- lato-fonts
3. Suggest to upstream to use fontconfig for font file discovery.

If option 2. actually works, it could set a precedence for other similar packages.

Extra docs from the packaging guidelines:
- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_dependencies_to_font_packages_in_other_packages
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#What_if_my_package_bundles_FreeSans.2C_Linux_Libertine.2C_Droid_or_Liberation_fonts.3F
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#But_I_really_do_not_want_to_take_part_in_this_fonts_packaging_business.21

Comment 4 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2021-02-20 19:38:03 UTC
> Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package:
> [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.

Something changed recently in sphinx (not don't know the details, but there was a thread on
fedora-devel about the install losing almost a gigabyte, that was apparently caused by that).
I rebuilt the package now and  python-hbmqtt-doc has no font files.
So that issue seems to have resolved itself ;)

Comment 5 Andy Mender 2021-02-21 11:25:55 UTC
Thanks for clearing this up!

Approved!

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2021-04-13 19:00:48 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hbmqtt

Comment 7 Andy Mender 2021-08-08 20:36:45 UTC
Pagure repo created, but no RPMs uploaded. Closing as deadreview.

Comment 8 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2021-08-09 11:46:58 UTC
Hmm, but that leaves us with an unretired package in the repo. Can you do 'fedpkg retire' ?

Comment 9 Andy Mender 2021-08-09 21:57:26 UTC
Opening with POST for now so it doesn't get lost. Fabian, would you like to proceed with this still?

Comment 10 Mattia Verga 2022-09-17 14:57:34 UTC
Closing as DEADREVIEW
Filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11036


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.