Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-datadir/python-pytest-datadir.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-datadir/python-pytest-datadir-1.3.1-1.fc35.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains a pytest plugin for manipulating test data directories and files.
Juts a note from pyproject-rpm-macros maintainer: Running `%tox` without running `%pyproject_buildrequires -t/-e` is not supported and you are "on your own" with listing all dependencies of %tox as manual BuildRequires. I don't suspect this will ever be anything more than %{py3_dist tox-current-env}, but no compatibility promises are given.
Before I go on the full review, I'd warmly encourage you to make use of new Python macros (you already BR pyproject-rpm-macros which contain all the new macros). The change is described in details here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonPackagingGuidelines202x Feel free to take a look and adjust my (not tested yet) spec file for this package if you like: https://ksurma.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-datadir.spec Let me know what you think.
Thank you, Miro and Karolina. I appreciate the input. I have used %pyproject_buildrequires before, but have come to dislike it for this reason: it becomes difficult for me to figure out what the package needs at build time, which makes it hard for me to manage trees of dependencies. I often ask the question, "Do I still need this package?" With explicit BuildRequires, a simple grep can answer that question. With %pyproject_buildrequires in use ... I don't know how to answer that question. I have to go rummage through koji build logs. It takes a lot more effort. I am thinking seriously about removing the %pyproject_buildrequires I already have in my spec files. If you can give me a simple alternative, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I don't want to add any more uses %pyproject_buildrequires of packages I maintain.
I use a repoquery like this to figure this out: $ repoquery --repo=rawhide-source --requires python-toml /usr/bin/toml-test pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3dist(numpy) python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(pytest) python3dist(setuptools) >= 40.8 python3dist(tox-current-env) >= 0.0.6 python3dist(wheel)
Thanks for your thoughts. I use the same repoquery as Miro and I remember myself being puzzled by the hidden BRs when attempting to grep over specfile tarball. Maybe it's worth mentioning in the new guidelines for others who encounter the issue. I have no desire to force you into using something you dislike and if you find the alternative with repoquery viable for your workflow, you can always adjust the spec file later. Meanwhile I did the review, package is APPROVED. One surprise for me is the transformation of rst to html. It should be fine to include docs in rst format. Is it a personal preference? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== 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. [-]: 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 3 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]: 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. [-]: 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). [x]: 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-pytest-datadir-1.3.1-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-pytest-datadir-1.3.1-1.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gabrielcnr/pytest-datadir/archive/1.3.1/pytest-datadir-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ca04aef439dc90723e08d84fc41ac8c9a0236ad897d5ca4fbaaa29715aa6bf0e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ca04aef439dc90723e08d84fc41ac8c9a0236ad897d5ca4fbaaa29715aa6bf0e Requires -------- python3-pytest-datadir (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(pytest) Provides -------- python3-pytest-datadir: python-pytest-datadir python3-pytest-datadir python3.10-pytest-datadir python3.10dist(pytest-datadir) python3dist(pytest-datadir)
I apologize for the long delay. Things got really busy. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #4) > I use a repoquery like this to figure this out: > > $ repoquery --repo=rawhide-source --requires python-toml > /usr/bin/toml-test > pyproject-rpm-macros > python3-devel > python3dist(numpy) > python3dist(packaging) > python3dist(pip) >= 19 > python3dist(pytest) > python3dist(setuptools) >= 40.8 > python3dist(tox-current-env) >= 0.0.6 > python3dist(wheel) Well, will you look at that? I didn't expect that to work. Okay, I have noted this and will take a harder look at migrating to the new macros.
(In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #5) > Thanks for your thoughts. I use the same repoquery as Miro and I remember > myself being puzzled by the hidden BRs when attempting to grep over specfile > tarball. Maybe it's worth mentioning in the new guidelines for others who > encounter the issue. I think adding that to the guidelines is a good idea. > I have no desire to force you into using something you dislike and if you > find the alternative with repoquery viable for your workflow, you can always > adjust the spec file later. I will try to set aside time soon to look into migrating all of my packages to the newer ways of doing things. Thank you for being patient with me. > Meanwhile I did the review, package is APPROVED. Thank you! > One surprise for me is the transformation of rst to html. It should be fine > to include docs in rst format. Is it a personal preference? Yes, personal preference. I find rst tiring to read as a human. I prefer the HTMLized version opened in a browser.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-datadir
FEDORA-2021-6008123538 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6008123538
FEDORA-2021-6008123538 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-2021-6008123538 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6008123538 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6008123538 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.