Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports.entry-points-selectable.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-backports.entry-points-selectable-1.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Compatibility shim to ease adoption of importlib_metadata 3.6. Supplies forward-compatibility of “selectable” entry points even on older versions of importlib_metadata and importlib.metadata, and avoids usage that triggers deprecation warnings. Fedora Account System Username: churchyard !!! WARNING !!! This is intended for EPEL 9 (Next) only and might be needed in Fedora 34 in the future, but it intentionally does not build on Fedora 35+.
Seems like virtualenv is about to drop this dependency after all, so we might not need it packaged. https://github.com/pypa/virtualenv/pull/2241
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Seems like virtualenv is about to drop this dependency after all, so we > might not need it packaged. > > https://github.com/pypa/virtualenv/pull/2241 OK! The review was quick, so I’ll go ahead and finish it up, and you can use it or not as needed.
Reviewed using EPEL9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79738825 This all looks reasonable, and the package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ This is a problem with the mock chroot (“No match for argument: fedpkg-minimal”). I don’t have a good way to check this, so I’m assuming it’s actually OK. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/python-backports.entry-points- selectable/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.9 This is a weird diagnostic. We have “python(abi)” in the Requires. Maybe it’s another mock issue. The package seems fine. [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 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested via koji; local mock problems are not related to the package. [-]: 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]: 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: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint Fedora-review would have “failed to parse” its output anyway. Manual rpmlint results are at the bottom of this review. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.15 starting (python version = 3.10.0, NVR = mock-2.15-1.fc35)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.15 INFO: Mock Version: 2.15 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/reviewer/python3-backports.entry-points-selectable-1.1.1-1.el9.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 36 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /home/reviewer/python3-backports.entry-points-selectable-1.1.1-1.el9.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/backports.entry_points_selectable/backports.entry_points_selectable-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 914b21a479fde881635f7af5adc7f6e38d6b274be32269070c53b698c60d5386 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 914b21a479fde881635f7af5adc7f6e38d6b274be32269070c53b698c60d5386 Requires -------- python3-backports.entry-points-selectable (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-backports.entry-points-selectable: python-backports.entry-points-selectable python3-backports.entry-points-selectable python3.9-backports.entry-points-selectable python3.9dist(backports-entry-points-selectable) python3.9dist(backports.entry-points-selectable) python3dist(backports-entry-points-selectable) python3dist(backports.entry-points-selectable) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec --prebuilt --name python-backports.entry-points-selectable Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Java, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s
Indeed not needed after all. Sorry for the noise.