Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/python-googletrans.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/python-googletrans-3.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/dialect/build/1708802/ Description: Googletrans is a free and unlimited python library that implemented Google Translate API. This uses the Google Translate Ajax API to make calls to such methods as detect and translate. Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi Note: I am unretiring this package. Note 2: Won't work on f32/31 because of #1887012.
> BuildArch: noarch > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > BuildRequires: python3-httpx Python dependencies other than "python3-devel" should be declared following the format "python3dist(foo)". > %package -n python3-%{pypi_name} > Summary: Google Translate API for Python > > Requires: python3-httpx Same here. > %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} > > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} Please, switch to the %py_provides macro: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro > %prep > %autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version} The PyPi package bundles its own egg info, but that should not be added to the Fedora package. Please, remove it by adding the following line after the %autosetup call: > rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info More info here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_packaging_eggs > %files -n python3-%{pypi_name} > %doc README.rst > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}* > %{_bindir}/%{pypi_name} Missing license file. I see it's not in the PyPi package. Please, check if it's possible to contact upstream and add a license file. Also, if this package is to be used by another package, it should provide egg info, by adding the following line at the end of the %files section: %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ Full review below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-googletrans See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Review: That's fine. It's a unretirement request. ===== 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. [!]: 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. [ ]: 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". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-googletrans/copr- build-1708802/review-python-googletrans/licensecheck.txt [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 20480 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 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 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. [!]: 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]: 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. [!]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: %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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-googletrans-3.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-googletrans-3.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-googletrans.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary googletrans 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-googletrans 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/googletrans/googletrans-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 44caeea42d91ff6ead5c2d49db2b88de66c45c2fe874c8ec03eb9b4ceb3a533d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 44caeea42d91ff6ead5c2d49db2b88de66c45c2fe874c8ec03eb9b4ceb3a533d Requires -------- python3-googletrans (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3-httpx Provides -------- python3-googletrans: python-googletrans python3-googletrans python3.9-googletrans python3.9dist(googletrans) python3dist(googletrans)
Oh, well... I took the package from someone else, I haven't checked thoroughly enough for issues it seems :P. It was to be expected since the recent changes in Python packaging. Thank you for taking such a quick and precise look into it! I will check myself again for anything else missing. > Missing license file. I see it's not in the PyPi package. Please, check if it's possible to contact upstream and add a license file. The License is in the README.md. I know, it's a bad choice from upstream, but that's still check what Fedora considers necessary. Anyway, thanks for the VERY QUICK review... Wow. That's honestly impressive! I am willing to do a review for you if you have one! I will address all these issues tomorrow, since where I am, it is a bit late now :)!
All your issues were addressed (I also included the description in a `%global` instead of having it repeated twice). Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/python-googletrans.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/dialect/python-googletrans-3.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm --- > > %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} > > > > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} > > Please, switch to the %py_provides macro: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro I removed it entirely since the package will likely never be packaged for f32- because of #1887012. > > %files -n python3-%{pypi_name} > > %doc README.rst > > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}* > > %{_bindir}/%{pypi_name} > > [...] > > Also, if this package is to be used by another package, it should provide egg info, by adding the following line at the end of the %files section: > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/ This was already covered by the glob `%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}*` but I do think that this is a bad thing to do, so I removed it and replaced it by the more traditional way to do it. --- Sorry for all those quite silly mistakes, it's only my second time unretiring a package, and I'd thought that this package would've been in a better shape, so I haven't checked thoroughly for errors, which I should've. Anyway, thank you again for this quick and thorough review.
No worries at all! Macros and SPEC requirements change over time so it's only fair to have a good, hard look at the previous SPEC and improve it when unretiring :). Everything looks okay now. Package approved!
Thank you! https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9813
I wonder, why %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} ?
Wow, Miro Hrončok saw me :3! Hello, I'm a big fan :P! > I wonder, why %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} ? setup.py requires "httpx==0.13.3", but in the repos, there's version 0.15/0.16. They work perfectly with python-googletrans and cause no issue according to what I tested. But removing %{?python_disable_dependency_generator} would require version 0.13.3 specifically, which would make python-googletrans uninstallable. Should I have done it another way?
I recommend relaxing the dependency in setup.py instead and submitting a pull request / patch upstream.
> I recommend relaxing the dependency in setup.py instead and submitting a pull request / patch upstream. I can see why. I'll make sure to patch the setup.py to do that before importing. We can never be sure of when a new dependency pops up :P!
FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9
FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-938a10a9d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.