Spec URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/python-gelidum.spec SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Inspired by the method freeze found in other languages like Javascript, this package tries to make immutable objects to make it easier avoiding accidental modifications in your code. Fedora Account System Username: davidsch
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - To get the runtime requirements in order to run tests, i.e. install_requires, you should change %pyproject_buildrequires to %pyproject_buildrequires -r The only reason it’s working for you is that there are currently no such requirements. - There is a comment left over from another package: # For python3-pello, %%{pyproject_files} handles code files, but # executables, documentation and license must be listed in the spec file: - Over half of the installed RPM size is a copy of the test suite. I think installing it is allowable, but I’m not convinced it is valuable. Consider (at your discretion): %exclude %{python3_sitelib}/gelidum/tests - You can, if you like, drop “%license LICENSE” since pyproject-rpm-macros properly tags the LICENSE file in the dist-info directory. It’s good to verify this with “rpm -qL -p …”, since there are some Python projects where this doesn’t work. - The spec file is missing a changelog with an initial entry. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs for the traditional way of keeping a changelog. If you want to opt in to rpmautospec (https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/), you can instead change Release: 1%{?dist} to Release: %autorelease and append to the end of the spec file: %changelog %autochangelog - While I think the URL referencing an upstream PR is technically adequate justification for 17.patch, it would be helpful to add a spec file comment with a quick summary, like: # Python 3.10 support - The Summary field should not end with a period. python3-gelidum.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Freeze your objects in python. ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2008657-python-gelidum/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines (except as mentioned) [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. [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. (based on tests passing) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [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-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-gelidum.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Freeze your objects in python. python3-gelidum.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag python-gelidum.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Freeze your objects in python. python-gelidum.src: E: no-changelogname-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/diegojromerolopez/gelidum/archive/v0.5.3/gelidum-0.5.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e6ced6045a2d401e570a28bd7aba2740ed3ffc7278747c36d050e1cd7b72c2bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e6ced6045a2d401e570a28bd7aba2740ed3ffc7278747c36d050e1cd7b72c2bd Requires -------- python3-gelidum (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-gelidum: python-gelidum python3-gelidum python3.10-gelidum python3.10dist(gelidum) python3dist(gelidum) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2008657 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Spec URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v1/python-gelidum.spec SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v1/python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1) > ===== Issues ===== > > - To get the runtime requirements in order to run tests, i.e. > install_requires, > you should change > > %pyproject_buildrequires > > to > > %pyproject_buildrequires -r > > The only reason it’s working for you is that there are currently no such > requirements. Unfortunately that doesn't work because the project doesn't provide a project.toml or setup.cfg file. I did assume that was a limitation of the macros. > - There is a comment left over from another package: > > # For python3-pello, %%{pyproject_files} handles code files, but > # executables, documentation and license must be listed in the spec file: Thanks, fixed. > > - Over half of the installed RPM size is a copy of the test suite. I think > installing it is allowable, but I’m not convinced it is valuable. Consider > (at your discretion): > > %exclude %{python3_sitelib}/gelidum/tests As per https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1094 that does not seem to be the proper usage of that macro, but if I remember correctly from the devel mailing list discussion no better alternative for such a use case was suggested. An extra -test subpackage could be used, though. > > - You can, if you like, drop “%license LICENSE” since pyproject-rpm-macros > properly tags the LICENSE file in the dist-info directory. It’s good to > verify this with “rpm -qL -p …”, since there are some Python projects where > this doesn’t work. I would prefer having it explicitly listed. Otherwise an update might break it, but good to know that it also works automatically :-) > - The spec file is missing a changelog with an initial entry. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs for > the > traditional way of keeping a changelog. > > If you want to opt in to rpmautospec > (https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/), you can instead change > > Release: 1%{?dist} > > to > > Release: %autorelease > > and append to the end of the spec file: > > %changelog > %autochangelog > Thanks, yes I did indeed miss the autochangelog entry. > - While I think the URL referencing an upstream PR is technically adequate > justification for 17.patch, it would be helpful to add a spec file comment > with a quick summary, like: > > # Python 3.10 support I changed the file name to python-3.10.patch > > - The Summary field should not end with a period. > > python3-gelidum.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Freeze your objects > in python. > Fixed Thanks for the review 👍
> Unfortunately that doesn't work because the project doesn't provide a project.toml or setup.cfg file. > I did assume that was a limitation of the macros. Contrary to impressions created by early documentation, these macros actually work just fine for projects that use setuptools via setup.py. From https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros: > 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). In particular, “%pyproject_buildrequires -r” will generates BR’s from “setuptools.setup(…, install_requires=[…])” in setup.py, and “%pyproject_buildrequires -x foo,bar” will generate the same BR’s plus those from “setuptools.setup(…, extras_require={"foo": […], "bar": […]})”. See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sshpubkeys for a nearly-minimal example of this working. ----- > As per > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1094 > that does not seem to be the proper usage of that macro, > but if I remember correctly from the devel mailing list discussion > no better alternative for such a use case was suggested. > An extra -test subpackage could be used, though. True, it doesn’t match rpm upstream’s intent, and there was a threat to remove it in 4.17. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any straightforward or documented way to adjust the installed files after “wheelification” when using pyproject-rpm-macros. It would be a huge mess if the ability to use %exclude this way went away without a documented workaround, but I understand your reluctance to start using it this way by choice. You could, as you noted, produce a python3-gelidum-tests subpackage. You could patch setup.py to change > packages=find_packages(), to > packages=find_packages(exclude="*.tests*"), (perhaps suggesting to upstream to do the same). Or, you could leave it as it is, since including the tests is permitted. ----- Setting NEEDINFO so you can let me know if you are ready for me to re-review or not.
Spec URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v1/python-gelidum.spec SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v1/python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm I thought I tried the `-r` version, but that failed. It is working now :-) I will ask upstream about > packages=find_packages(exclude="*.tests*"), and go in the mean time with %exclude
Now fixed links: Spec URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v2/python-gelidum.spec SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v2/python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm
I tried > packages=find_packages(exclude="*.tests*"), and it doesn't work. Even more troubling I noticed that a non-free (CC BY-NC 2.0) image is included in the source, I will ask upstream to remove it.
(In reply to david08741 from comment #6) > I tried > > packages=find_packages(exclude="*.tests*"), > and it doesn't work. That’s because there was a typo in my suggestion. It should have been > packages=find_packages(exclude=["*.tests*"]), which I *did* test. ----- > Even more troubling I noticed that a non-free (CC BY-NC 2.0) image is > included in the source, I will ask upstream to remove it. Wow, nice catch. I missed that in the initial review, since the license was only mentioned in README.md. Upstream has updated to 0.5.5 with a CC0 image. If it were installed, it could be handled like: > # The entire source is MIT except resources/gelidum.jpg, which is CC0 > License: MIT and CC0 but since it is not installed, the overall license can stay just “MIT”. For clarity, you might still want a comment like: > # The entire source is MIT except resources/gelidum.jpg, which is CC0 (and is > # not installed) ----- I’ll wait for you to update to 0.5.5 before re-reviewing. Thanks!
Spec URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v3/python-gelidum.spec SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v3/python-gelidum-0.5.3-1.fc36.src.rpm I have update to 0.5.5 now. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #7) > (In reply to david08741 from comment #6) > > I tried > > > packages=find_packages(exclude="*.tests*"), > > and it doesn't work. > > That’s because there was a typo in my suggestion. It should have been > > > packages=find_packages(exclude=["*.tests*"]), > > which I *did* test. > Ah, I only tested within the git-tree, in which case they got included anyway. > > # The entire source is MIT except resources/gelidum.jpg, which is CC0 (and is > > # not installed) > Good idea to add a comment - done
Thanks, I’ll take a look at it. Fixed SRPM URL: https://davidsch.fedorapeople.org/v3/python-gelidum-0.5.5-1.fc36.src.rpm
The package is approved. Please do see the two recommendations below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - Currently, the package uses %autochangelog but not %autorelease. I’m not sure if using only part of rpmautospec is a supported approach. I strongly recommend changing Release: 1%{?dist} to Release: %autorelease prior to import. - You are right to do this: rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/version.txt rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/requirements.txt but you should not have to. Please consider reporting this upstream as a bug. It’s easy to reproduce it by running “pip install gelidum” in a virtualenv, and then noting that these two files are present in the root of the virtualenv directory. ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2008657-python- gelidum/20211101/2008657-python-gelidum/licensecheck.txt [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 20480 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: 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. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. (based on tests passing) [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-gelidum-0.5.5-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-gelidum-0.5.5-1.fc36.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/diegojromerolopez/gelidum/archive/v0.5.5/gelidum-0.5.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01ea02616af9039d0a9dd3bee8efc7eef0178895c3a007d6c9cb264e5424cc83 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01ea02616af9039d0a9dd3bee8efc7eef0178895c3a007d6c9cb264e5424cc83 Requires -------- python3-gelidum (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-gelidum: python-gelidum python3-gelidum python3.10-gelidum python3.10dist(gelidum) python3dist(gelidum) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2008657-python-gelidum/20211101/2008657-python-gelidum/srpm/python-gelidum.spec 2021-11-01 09:44:54.148365019 -0400 +++ /home/reviewer/2008657-python-gelidum/20211101/2008657-python-gelidum/srpm-unpacked/python-gelidum.spec 2021-10-30 16:30:24.000000000 -0400 @@ -66,3 +66,7 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sat Oct 30 2021 David Bold <davidsch> 0.5.5-1 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Sun Sep 26 2021 David Bold <davidsch> 0.5.3-1 +- new guidelines Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2008657 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, R, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gelidum
FEDORA-2021-811f887a30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-811f887a30
FEDORA-2021-784eef57d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-784eef57d9
FEDORA-2021-811f887a30 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-811f887a30 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-811f887a30 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-784eef57d9 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-2021-784eef57d9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-784eef57d9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-784eef57d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-811f887a30 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.