Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The sole purpose of ConfigUpdater is to easily update an INI config file with no changes to the original file except the intended ones. This means comments, the ordering of sections and key/value-pairs as wells as their cases are kept as in the original file. Thus ConfigUpdater provides complementary functionality to Python’s ConfigParser which is primarily meant for reading config files and writing new ones. Features The key differences to ConfigParser are: - minimal invasive changes in the update configuration file, - proper handling of comments, - only a single config file can be updated at a time, - the original case of sections and keys are kept, - control over the position of a new section/key Following features are deliberately not implemented: -interpolation of values, - propagation of parameters from the default section, - conversions of values, - passing key/value-pairs with default argument, - non-strict mode allowing duplicate sections and keys. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
I haven't gone through everything yet, but it looks very good. Some small issues: - A few typos: * as wells as their cases -> as well as their cases * missing space between "-" and "interpolation of values" - Change the summary for the doc subpackage to something more appropriate.
Thanks very much Arthur, I can make these cosmetic tweaks before the import. Are you a package maintainer already? (zodbot couldn't find you, but zodbot may be out of sync with the new accounts system). Please set the review flag if you are. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer The Needinfo flag is also generally used when someone has not responded, as it sends extra bugzilla reminder e-mails. Cheers, Ankur
Updated spec srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm * Wed Jul 07 2021 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.0-1 - improve doc pacakge description - add space in package description Cheers, Ankur
Thank you for the info, all the different flags were a bit confusing. :) > Are you a package maintainer already? I'm in the packager group, I think that suffices? https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/principis/ There are some trivial issues left: - You've used %{summary} for the summary of the doc package. I think something like this would be better: Documentation for python-configupdater - You seem to have missed the typo in the description * as wells as their cases -> as well as their cases - Typo in changelog * pacakge -> package Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "*No copyright* Python Software Foundation License". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/Documents/rpm/python- configupdater/1979708-python-configupdater/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 20480 bytes in 4 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [-]: 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: [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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-ConfigUpdater [?]: 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]: 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-ConfigUpdater-2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-configupdater-doc-2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/C/ConfigUpdater/ConfigUpdater-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a60447fb25e5cb5036cdd5761287ac5649135a49094bc8bd71d999417483441 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a60447fb25e5cb5036cdd5761287ac5649135a49094bc8bd71d999417483441 Requires -------- python3-ConfigUpdater (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python-configupdater-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-ConfigUpdater: python-ConfigUpdater python3-ConfigUpdater python3.10-ConfigUpdater python3.10dist(configupdater) python3dist(configupdater) python-configupdater-doc: python-configupdater-doc Package approved! Please resolve the remarks above before import.
Thanks very much Arthur. Yes, if you weren't in the packager group, you wouldn't be able to use the fedora-review flag :) I've updated the spec/srpm: * Wed Jul 07 2021 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 2.0-1 - minor typo fixes - improve doc sub-package summary Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-configupdater/python-configupdater-2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Requesting SCM now. Cheers, Ankur
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-configupdater
FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-702448bf24
FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-702448bf24 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.