Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~filbranden/python-jupyter-packaging/python-jupyter-packaging.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~filbranden/python-jupyter-packaging/python-jupyter-packaging-0.7.11-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Tools to help build and install Jupyter Python packages Fedora Account System Username: filbranden
I highly recommend giving https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros a try. Let me know if you need help with that.
> I highly recommend giving https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros a try. Let me know if you need help with that. Thanks for the suggestion, Miro! The readme for pyproject-rpm-macros tells me that "these macros are useful for packaging Python projects that use the PEP 517 pyproject.toml file", but then looking at jupyter-packaging (both the download from PyPI and the GitHub project for it), there doesn't seem to be a pyproject.toml file there... I can always request that they add such a file to their project... But should we wait until they do, or should we go ahead with the current spec that doesn't depend on the pyproject definitions?
I think that line is a bit misleading. The full README says: They work for: traditional Setuptools-based projects that use the setup.py file, newer Setuptools-based projects that have a setup.cfg file, general Python projects that use the PEP 517 pyproject.toml file (which allows using any build system, such as setuptools, flit or poetry). They certainly work well enough for a traditional project with setup.py. The generated BR’s are especially nice. Using them is not currently mandatory, but I’ve also been trying to encourage open-minded maintainers to try them in new packages. Since this is a nice, simple project, I’m attaching a working example of making full use of the pyproject-rpm-macros. I haven’t attempted to review the package for any other issues when modifying the spec file. However, I’m happy to do the actual review once you decide what you want to do.
Created attachment 1747469 [details] Example of using pyproject-rpm-macros
Ah! The wording was misleading, so we have updated the README, but we apparently forgot to update the package %description. Nice catch.
Are you still working on this? Do you: 1. Want someone to review the package as originally submitted? (If so, I will.) 2. Want to use the spec file I offered using pyproject-rpm-macros? (If so, drop “BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)” because it is not needed with “%pyproject_buildrequires”, and upload a new spec and SRPM.) 3. No longer want to package this? Please close this issue.
I see that there is no activity for more than a month so I'm gonna open a new bug for this package because I need it to update python-notebook.
Depends on whether you consider the one month to have started back in January, or on 2021-05-31 when I asked a direct question and set NEEDINFO. It will be one month since the latter next week—that would be an unambiguously safe time to post the comment starting the one-week period before closure under the stalled review policy. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras/Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding
Thanks for the info about the policy, I always forget about it. Nonetheless, there is a new version release with a lot of packaging and testing issues so even I'm basing my work on your specfile, a lot has to be done to make it ready. After that, I'll be glad to make the original author and you co-maintainers of the package.
I’ll be happy to review your package when it’s ready. ----- If you’re starting with my sample spec file, note that > BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) is not needed when %pyproject_buildrequires is used. (I didn’t know that at the time.)
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10) > I’ll be happy to review your package when it’s ready. That sounds awesome, thank you. There is the new review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975859 I'm gonna keep this one open so there is some competion and there is still some chance that this one will be finished sooner than mine.
Filipe, it'd nice of you if you can close the bug if you are no longer interested in it. It'd actually speed things up because we wouldn't need to wait until the end of the dedicated time defined in the policy.
> When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one month Last comment was 2021-01-09. > a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon. That happened at 2021-05-31. > If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed It has been longer than a week. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1975859 ***