Spec URL: https://rominf.fedorapeople.org/python-folium.spec SRPM URL: https://rominf.fedorapeople.org/python-folium-0.12.1.post1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: folium builds on the data wrangling strengths of the Python ecosystem and the mapping strengths of the Leaflet.js library. Manipulate your data in Python, then visualize it in a Leaflet map via folium. Fedora Account System Username: rominf
Looks good, please fix the EVR though: - upstream versioning is awkward, eg it has "0.12.1.post1", which suggests they could have a "0.12.1.pre1" as well which would rpmversion sort as a later version. And since we don't know if the next version would be 0.13 or 0.12.2 we cannot use a -0.post1 release either :P So I recommend using "0.12.1-1.post1" as the EVR and not "0.12.1.post1-1". Maybe worth sharing with upstream why their current method uhm, results in an atmospheric pressure difference :) Once fixed, the package is approved. Suggestion: - I would add the %check section and then put only the comments you have in there including a comment with the check command (changing the % for a #). That allows people to install the requirements manually via pypi and run the tests with network access enabled. And perhaps the fedora maintainer would be more tempted to run it themselves before bumping to a new release as well :) I would also change the text "this package depends on internet connection" to say "tests for this package depend on an internet connection." 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 85 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2033402-python- folium/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. [-]: 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: [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: [x]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Check is empty due to requiring dozens of packages plus network access. This is okay. [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://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/folium/folium-0.12.1.post1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e91e57d8298f3ccf4cce3c5e065bea6eb17033e3c5432b8a22214009c266b2ab CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e91e57d8298f3ccf4cce3c5e065bea6eb17033e3c5432b8a22214009c266b2ab Requires -------- python3-folium (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(branca) python3.10dist(jinja2) python3.10dist(numpy) python3.10dist(requests) Provides -------- python3-folium: python-folium python3-folium python3.10-folium python3.10dist(folium) python3dist(folium) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2033402 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, Haskell, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
1. According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_complex_versioning_with_non_sorting_upstream_post_release_versions, your way is possible, but deprecated. The package should be named like this instead: python-folium-0.12.1.20211119.GA1-1%{?dist} 2. I don't want to include the code for testing which is complex, is a subject of change, and doesn't run automatically. Is this OK? %check # No checks here since quite a few packages for testing are not yet in Fedora # repositories; also, tests for this package depend on an internet connection. # For the instructions on running tests, please refer to: # https://github.com/python-visualization/folium/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#contributing-code
for 1) did you mean: python-folium-0.12.1.20211119.post1-1%{?dist} that works too. I prefer the one without datestamp but you are fine to pick yours if you want. As long as "post1" appears in it so it can be matched up against upstream. 2) looks good. thanks!
Fixed (1) Spec: https://rominf.fedorapeople.org/python-folium.spec SRPM: https://rominf.fedorapeople.org/python-folium-0.12.1.20211119.post1-1.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks! APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-folium
FEDORA-2021-fc8b9c0347 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc8b9c0347
FEDORA-2021-629f015c41 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-629f015c41
FEDORA-2021-629f015c41 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-2021-629f015c41 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-629f015c41 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-fc8b9c0347 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-fc8b9c0347 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc8b9c0347 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-629f015c41 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-fc8b9c0347 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.