Spec URL: https://fedorapeople/python-xyzservices.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople/python-xyzservices-2021.11.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: xyzservices is a lightweight library providing a repository of available XYZ services offering raster basemap tiles. The repository is provided via Python API and as a compressed JSON file. XYZ tiles can be used as background for your maps to provide necessary spatial context. Fedora Account System Username: qulogic
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80213892
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #0) > Spec URL: https://fedorapeople/python-xyzservices.spec > SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople/python-xyzservices-2021.11.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Please fix your URLs.
Well, I don't know how that happened. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-xyzservices.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-xyzservices-2021.11.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Few things: 1. Do you have any specific reason to use pypi sources ? According to guidelines sources from for example github are preferred: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_source_files_from_pypi 2. During test stage we can see bunch of errors like: > PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.request - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details... This probably should be addressed. It seems that this marker is defined in github sources but missing in pypi: https://github.com/geopandas/xyzservices/blob/main/pytest.ini. I'm still reviewing it. I will post more issues if I find any.
In %doc I can see that you put README file from root of the project. This is more general purpose file that includes information such as: installation process, and it should not be included as documentation: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation There is also proper doc directory from which documentation should be generated. It's rather small so separate package for it won't be necessary.
(In reply to mkulik from comment #4) > Few things: > > 1. Do you have any specific reason to use pypi sources ? According to > guidelines sources from for example github are preferred: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_source_files_from_pypi It doesn't say that; all it says is that you should use a tarball that isn't missing stuff. I don't want to use the GitHub tarball because they use versioneer and that is broken without a git checkout. > 2. During test stage we can see bunch of errors like: > > > PytestUnknownMarkWarning: Unknown pytest.mark.request - is this a typo? You can register custom marks to avoid this warning - for details... > > This probably should be addressed. It seems that this marker is defined in > github sources but missing in pypi: > https://github.com/geopandas/xyzservices/blob/main/pytest.ini. > Fixed. (In reply to mkulik from comment #5) > In %doc I can see that you put README file from root of the project. This is > more general purpose file that includes information such as: installation > process, and it should not be included as documentation: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation I wouldn't call it entirely general purpose; install information is only a single section there. > There is also proper doc directory from which documentation should be > generated. It's rather small so separate package for it won't be necessary. The API docs are not in the PyPI sdist, and would require several new packages just to build, so I'd rather not include them. Updated: Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-xyzservices.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-xyzservices-2022.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
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: "BSD 3-Clause License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mkulik/review-python- xyzservices/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. [x]: 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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/x/xyzservices/xyzservices-2022.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 042ddd3c27a7c8707cc555737d0c8a86137e70bb00f8530117bee484993bd6e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 042ddd3c27a7c8707cc555737d0c8a86137e70bb00f8530117bee484993bd6e4 Requires -------- python3-xyzservices (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-xyzservices: python-xyzservices python3-xyzservices python3.10-xyzservices python3.10dist(xyzservices) python3dist(xyzservices) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-xyzservices Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, Perl, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xyzservices
FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6
FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe
FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-5a75aedeb6 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-fc531de7fe has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.