Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-testing.common.database.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-testing.common.database-2.0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Utilities for testing.* packages. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80137273 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80137274 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80137275 This is a trivial pure-Python package. The only unusual aspect is a co-owned namespace package.
Fixed a collections.abc import. Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211218/python-testing.common.database.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20211218/python-testing.common.database-2.0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm
Aside from the usual %license, this one is raised [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/testing(python3-testing.postgresql) Looks like these packages are all part of the same family [1]. If python3-testing.postgres does not require python3-testing.common.database (or vice-versa), I'd say this classifies as [2], otherwise one package will need to require the other. [1] https://github.com/tk0miya?tab=repositories&q=testing&type=&language=&sort= [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function 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. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/testing(python3-testing.postgresql) [-]: 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 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 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]: 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep [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 ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: 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. [-]: 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 ------- OK Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/testing.common.database/testing.common.database-2.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 965d80b2985315325dc358c3061b174a712f4d4d5bf6a80b58b11f9a1dd86d73 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 965d80b2985315325dc358c3061b174a712f4d4d5bf6a80b58b11f9a1dd86d73 Requires -------- python3-testing.common.database (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-testing.common.database: python-testing.common.database python3-testing.common.database python3.10-testing.common.database python3.10dist(testing-common-database) python3.10dist(testing.common.database) python3dist(testing-common-database) python3dist(testing.common.database) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2033828 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml, Java, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! ----- Regarding the license file—specifically, the status quo in which the license file is marked %license by %pyproject_save_files but resides in the dist-info directory rather than in /usr/share/licenses, and the question of whether it should be additionally installed in /usr/share/licenses—Miro Hrončok responded to my query on the packaging mailing list[1] agreeing that license files do not have to be installed in /usr/share/licenses, referencing an earlier thread on the same list[2] in which Jason L Tibbits III said he knew of no such requirement. Since Miro and Jason are both current FPC members, I think this is a reasonably conclusive answer to the question of whether the additional “%license …” is required. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CQX3A7LKXYODXDSR2KZOBNM2CRNN2AYS/ [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/ ----- Regarding the shared directory, there is no current dependency on this package from python-testing.postgres, so it will need to remain shared for now. This is the typical situation for Python namespace packages like this one. Once python-testing.common.database is in the distribution, I plan to offer a PR to update python-testing.postgres to a current version, which (if merged) *will* introduce the dependency. It should be possible to remove the shared directory ownership, and the shared ownership of %{python3_sitelib}/testing/__init__.py, in that PR, but that will be a change in python-testing.postgres and not in this package.
Ok, thanks for the clarification, approved!
Thanks for the review! Repository requested.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-testing.common.database
FEDORA-2021-ce421c7243 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ce421c7243
FEDORA-2021-ce421c7243 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-b1ab48a833 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b1ab48a833
FEDORA-2021-bce6a11b8c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bce6a11b8c
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2257dc672d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2257dc672d
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b230ecba4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b230ecba4
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f60663947 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f60663947
FEDORA-2021-b1ab48a833 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-b1ab48a833 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b1ab48a833 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b230ecba4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b230ecba4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2257dc672d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2257dc672d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-bce6a11b8c 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-bce6a11b8c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bce6a11b8c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f60663947 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f60663947 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b1ab48a833 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7b230ecba4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2257dc672d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-bce6a11b8c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2f60663947 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.