Spec URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-cs/python-cs.spec SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-cs/python-cs-3.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Patch URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-cs/python-cs-3.0.0-tox-skip-check-manifest.patch Description: A simple, yet powerful CloudStack API client for python and the command-line. Fedora Account System Username: rominf This is my first package. I know Paul Wouters personally (we work in the same company), hence I would like that he be my sponsor. This package will be used by python-exoscale, which is not packaged yet.
I've just received a message from Paul Wouters, he wrote that he agrees to sponsor me. I also would like to note, that this package builds on Fedora 33, 34, and it would be great to have it in these versions of Fedora.
There is one big issue, which is that it provides /usr/bin/cs that is also provides by the package clearsilver See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ It looks like debian installs the package without /usr/bin/cs, perhaps that is something we can do as well ? The rpmlint error on "non-executable-script" can be ignored. Ideally upstream would fix that, but the file location really means it is not run standalone but imported (like /usr/bin/cs does) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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", "BSD (3 clause)". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2017419-python-cs/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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. There is a conflict with the package clearsilver which also provides /usr/bin/cs [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: [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-cs , python3-cs+async , python3-cs+highlight [?]: Package functions as described. [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-cs-3.0.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python3-cs+async-3.0.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python3-cs+highlight-3.0.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-cs-3.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-cs.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/cs/client.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-cs.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cs python3-cs+async.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-cs+async.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) async -> sync, a sync python3-cs+async.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-cs+async.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a sync python3-cs+async.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-cs+highlight.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-cs+highlight.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-cs+highlight.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/exoscale/cs/archive/3.0.0/python-cs-3.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 83a29c421979e139c9397afad692125fe0df789508a1cf62f6104a1037831581 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83a29c421979e139c9397afad692125fe0df789508a1cf62f6104a1037831581 Requires -------- python3-cs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(pytz) python3.10dist(requests) python3-cs+async (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-cs python3.10dist(aiohttp) python3-cs+highlight (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-cs python3.10dist(pygments) Provides -------- python3-cs: python-cs python3-cs python3.10-cs python3.10dist(cs) python3dist(cs) python3-cs+async: python-cs+async python3-cs+async python3.10-cs+async python3.10dist(cs[async]) python3dist(cs[async]) python3-cs+highlight: python-cs+highlight python3-cs+highlight python3.10-cs+highlight python3.10dist(cs[highlight]) 1,0-1 Top
After communication with the package owner of clearsilver, it was agreed to put Conflicts: statement in both packages. Updates for clearsilver are now in updates-testing. With that the package is APPROVED, but please ensure to add the Conflicts: clearsilver to the spec/srpm file before importing it into fedora.
I have also now sponsored you as a Fedora Packager. Welcome and thanks for contributing!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cs
Package is present in Fedora 33-36.