Spec URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jcpunk/python-dbutils/build/2262860/python-dbutils.spec SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jcpunk/python-dbutils/build/2262860/python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: DBUtils is a suite of tools providing solid, persistent and pooled connections to a database that can be used in all kinds of multi-threaded environments. Fedora Account System Username: jcpunk
Sigh: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02262860-python-dbutils/python-dbutils.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02262860-python-dbutils/python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
Note: This is a preliminary (unofficial) review! Hello Pat, I'm not a packager, but like to help out. Please remember that this is a preliminary (unofficial) review. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The description contains too long lines, please make sure that there are no lines longer than 80 characters. - Line 28 contains tabs instead of spaces. - Please use the %py_provides macro for the "python3-DBUtils" provides. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro Remarks: ======== - On lines 26-27 you've shortened the comment, maybe write it out in full? It's just a small nitpick, that's why I put it here. ===== 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]: 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 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. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python See the %py_provides issue above. [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: [-]: 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]: 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-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-dbutils.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C DBUtils is a suite of tools providing solid, persistent and pooled connections to a database that can be used in all kinds of multi-threaded environments. python-dbutils.src: E: description-line-too-long C DBUtils is a suite of tools providing solid, persistent and pooled connections to a database that can be used in all kinds of multi-threaded environments. python-dbutils.src:28: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 28) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/D/DBUtils/DBUtils-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 570e7dd136c13116feef8bca18609e3f66b8668a9c3d5f2109d8744c4444d861 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 570e7dd136c13116feef8bca18609e3f66b8668a9c3d5f2109d8744c4444d861 Requires -------- python3-dbutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-dbutils: python-dbutils python3-DBUtils python3-dbutils python3.10-dbutils python3.10dist(dbutils) python3dist(dbutils) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973733 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I took a quick stab at cleaning up the listed bits: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02285138-python-dbutils/python-dbutils.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02285138-python-dbutils/python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
You should (re-)build the documentation in docs/: > pushd docs > %{python3} make.py > popd and install the result. For example, something like: > install -t '%{buildroot}%{_pkgdocdir}/html' -D -p -m 0644 \ > docs/*.html docs/*.css docs/*.png and then > %doc %{_pkgdocdir} in the appropriate %files section. The documentation is small, so you could choose to put it in a -doc subpackage or just include it with the python3-* package. ----- You should also run the tests. This could be as simple as: > BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) > %check > %pytest or, if you prefer not to add a BR on pytest: > %check > %{python3} -m unittest discover -v .
I took a quick stab at cleaning up the listed bits and put doc in its own package since it was easy enough: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02285516-python-dbutils/python-dbutils.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02285516-python-dbutils/python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
Thanks. This package looks very good. I found only one small but important issue that needs to be resolved before I can approve it. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The license file must be installed whenever any combination of subpackages is installed. Since the -doc package (correctly, in my opinion) does not depend on the base package, add %license LICENSE to its %files section. - I would suggest writing python3-setuptools as python3dist(setuptools). This wouldn’t block approval, though. ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1973733-python-dbutils/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as noted) [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [-]: 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-dbutils [x]: Package functions as described. (based on passing tests) [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]: 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-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-dbutils-doc-2.0.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc35.src.rpm python3-dbutils.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/D/DBUtils/DBUtils-2.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 570e7dd136c13116feef8bca18609e3f66b8668a9c3d5f2109d8744c4444d861 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 570e7dd136c13116feef8bca18609e3f66b8668a9c3d5f2109d8744c4444d861 Requires -------- python3-dbutils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-dbutils-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-dbutils: python-DBUtils python-dbutils python3-DBUtils python3-dbutils python3.10-DBUtils python3.10-dbutils python3.10dist(dbutils) python3dist(dbutils) python-dbutils-doc: python-dbutils-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1973733 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Updates made: SPEC: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02286118-python-dbutils/python-dbutils.spec SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/python-dbutils/fedora-34-x86_64/02286118-python-dbutils/python-dbutils-2.0.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
By examining the diff between your previous spec file and your latest one: > --- srpm-unpacked/python-dbutils.spec 2021-06-21 15:08:00.000000000 -0400 > +++ python-dbutils.spec 2021-06-22 10:29:06.392335710 -0400 > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ > BuildArch: noarch > > BuildRequires: python3-devel > -BuildRequires: python3-setuptools > +BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) > BuildRequires: python3dist(docutils) > > > @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ > %{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info > > %files doc > +%license LICENSE > %doc %{_pkgdocdir} > > %changelog I can confirm that all of the issues I found were resolved, and no new ones were introduced. Thanks! Package approved.
I thought my next step was to open : https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35193 but it appears that wasn't correct....
Is your “RHBZ email” set correctly in https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/?next=/user/jcpunk/ ? Has fedpkg request-repo worked for you in the past?
Ah, my RHBZ email was indeed not right. I've re-run fedpkg request-repo
Even with the elements matching where I know to make them match, I got closed invalid. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35196 I've never needed `fedpkg request-repo` before....
> I've never needed `fedpkg request-repo` before.... I mentioned it only because it’s the only method I’ve ever used for opening those tickets. Consider opening a ticket at https://pagure.io/releng/issues asking for help finding the problem, or going to #fedora-releng on IRC (libera.chat). It’s mostly just robots reading the issues and comments in https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dbutils