Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/configobj-el7/epel-7-x86_64/01774401-python3-configobj/python3-configobj.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/configobj-el7/epel-7-x86_64/01774401-python3-configobj/python3-configobj-5.0.6-1.el7.src.rpm Description: ConfigObj is a simple but powerful configuration file reader and writer: an ini file round tripper. Its main feature is that it is very easy to use, with a straightforward programmers interface and a simple syntax for config files. Fedora Account System Username: fschwarz Background: I need a Python 3 version of python3-configobj for EPEL 7 which will be required by upcoming certbot versions (bug 1813678) so this is an EPEL 7-only review request. My spec file just combines a somewhat modern template with some parts of Fedora's python-configobj spec file.
First of all: I am on my way to become a packages and this is my first review.
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/python3-configobj See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Public domain". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ckarl/prog/fedora/nogit/python3-configobj/1899337-python3-configobj/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 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 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: [-]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [?]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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-configobj-5.0.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python3-configobj-5.0.6-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-configobj.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Config -> Con fig, Con-fig, Configure python3-configobj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii python3-configobj.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Config -> Con fig, Con-fig, Configure python3-configobj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-configobj.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Config -> Con fig, Con-fig, Configure python3-configobj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/DiffSK/configobj/archive/v5.0.6.tar.gz#/configobj-5.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2e140354efcca6f558ff9ee941b435ae09a617bc071797bef62c8d6ed2033d5e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2e140354efcca6f558ff9ee941b435ae09a617bc071797bef62c8d6ed2033d5e Requires -------- python3-configobj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-six Provides -------- python3-configobj: python-configobj python3-configobj python3.9-configobj python3.9dist(configobj) python3dist(configobj) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1899337 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, fonts, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
About the Issue "Package does not use a name that already exists." I think this is OK, because to package with the same name is orphaned for a long time.
Hey Christoph, thank you very much for your time and welcome to Fedora :-). A few comments for future reviews: > [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Nobody expects you to do a formal licensing audit but you can check the source code (e.g. check for a license header, lines in setup.cfg/setup.py). The "licensecheck" output itself is not always helpful. > [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). If you check the Requires/Provides as shown by your fedora-review output you'll see that nothing crazy is coming up. The only interesting thing is that it just requires "python(abi)" while I expected something related to Python 3. Actually my local mockbuild produces a dependency on "python(abi) = 3.6" which looks better. I just double checked and the same is true for the COPR build (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fschwarz/configobj-el7/). Unfortunately I think I have to reset the fedora-review flag as I think you are not a member of the packager group yet. > To show you familiarity with Fedora's guidelines perform unofficial (also called preliminary) reviews in other maintainers' package review request. Please clearly state when doing these reviews, that there are yet unofficial, and do not change the review requests status except for adding you to the CC list. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Show_Your_Expertise_by_Commenting_on_other_Review_Requests If you are interested in Python packages there should be no shortage of work in Fedora. Feel free to send me an email when you need some guidance/help.
(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #4) > The only interesting thing is > that it just requires "python(abi)" while I expected something related to > Python 3. Actually my local mockbuild produces a dependency on "python(abi) > = 3.6" which looks better. Fedora review strips versions from the output.
I concur with Christoph's review. Setting fedora-review+
releng ticket requested: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9985
package imported + built for epel7 thank you.