Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02341084-python-azure-devtools/python-azure-devtools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02341084-python-azure-devtools/python-azure-devtools-1.2.1~git.1.78e928e-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Microsoft Azure Development Tools for SDK Fedora Account System Username: mhayden This is one half of the testing components for the Azure SDK (which is almost entirely packaged already). It includes lots of testing helpers that all of the Azure SDK packages can use. Once this is packaged, the other SDK packages can be updated to run tests using this package.
This was in Fedora before (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-azure-devtools), and it looks like it’s still maintained by Mohamed ElMorabity for F33 and EPEL7. Is this intended to be a review for unretirement (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package)? I’ve never done one of those in the case where there is still a maintainer for an older stable branch. I wonder—does Mohamed have to transfer the package to you, or at least add you as a maintainer, since he is still the package owner, in order for you to be able to unretire it?
This is where things get tricky. The python-azure-devtools package was the original, but then python-azure-sdk obsoleted it. However, python-azure-sdk installs all of the SDK components from the same git SHA, but Azure doesn't release their SDK like that any longer. That's why I've been packaging the individual SDK pieces on their own. The package in this review obsoletes python-azure-sdk (as the other smaller SDK packages do). It's turtles all the way down. 🤭 🐢 Mohamed and I had some miscommunication recently and he assigned me almost all of his active packages but this one was left out (since it would drop after F33 was EOL). I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.
I believe a re-review is necessary, then proceeed with filing the releng ticket for its unretirement.
Full review below. MUST items: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => There are some ASL2.0 licensed files SHOULD items: [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. => Add an appropriate comment / upstream link to %patch0 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/python-azure-devtools 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. [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. [x]: 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: [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-python/archive/78e928e8b556eff8fdcd43cc3986b4cd9d441ba4/azure-sdk-for-python-78e928e8b556eff8fdcd43cc3986b4cd9d441ba4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88f5d6941a41e09863ea3fa2d8b66d37a42dee2981769a2394e2b1bbc33bc7eb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88f5d6941a41e09863ea3fa2d8b66d37a42dee2981769a2394e2b1bbc33bc7eb Requires -------- python3-azure-devtools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(configargparse) python3.10dist(six) python3.10dist(vcrpy) Provides -------- python3-azure-devtools: python-azure-devtools python3-azure-devtools python3.10-azure-devtools python3.10dist(azure-devtools) python3dist(azure-devtools) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1986414 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, fonts, PHP, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02356937-python-azure-devtools/python-azure-devtools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mhayden/azure-cli/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02356937-python-azure-devtools/python-azure-devtools-1.2.1~git.1.a88809f-1.fc35.src.rpm Thanks for having a look, Sandro! I think I've corrected the issues you found.
All good, approved P.s. would you mind taking some of these? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985637 - perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash: needed to update perl-Hash-DefHash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988701 - mingw-python-pyephem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988685 - mingw-qt6-qtbase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988686 - mingw-qt6-qtdeclarative https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988688 - mingw-qt6-qtactiveqt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988690 - mingw-qt6-qtimageformats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988692 - mingw-qt6-qtcharts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988693 - mingw-qt6-qt3d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988695 - mingw-qt6-qtsvg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988697 - mingw-qt6-qtquickcontrols2 I'll also take the remaining reviews you posted on fedora-devel.
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #6) > All good, approved Thanks! 🤗 > P.s. would you mind taking some of these? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985637 - > perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash: needed to update perl-Hash-DefHash > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988701 - mingw-python-pyephem > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988685 - mingw-qt6-qtbase > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988686 - mingw-qt6-qtdeclarative > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988688 - mingw-qt6-qtactiveqt > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988690 - > mingw-qt6-qtimageformats > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988692 - mingw-qt6-qtcharts > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988693 - mingw-qt6-qt3d > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988695 - mingw-qt6-qtsvg > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988697 - > mingw-qt6-qtquickcontrols2 Can do! I'm looking at perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash now. > I'll also take the remaining reviews you posted on fedora-devel. Thank you!
Releng ticket opened. https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10240
Just built for rawhide. Hopefully it shows up in tomorrow's compose.