Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-autoclasstoc.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-autoclasstoc-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: It’s surprisingly difficult to document large Python classes in a way that’s easy for users to navigate. Most projects use the autodoc Sphinx plugin, which simply puts the complete documentation for each class member one after another. While this does fully document the class, it doesn’t give the user a quick way to see everything the class can do. This makes classes of even moderate complexity difficult to navigate. It also encourages projects to be stingy about which class members to include in the documentation (e.g. excluding special methods, inherited methods, private methods, and/or undocumented methods), to the further detriment of the user. What’s needed is for each class to have a succinct table of contents (TOC) that: • Is organized into sections that will be meaningful to the user. Different projects and classes may call for different sections, e.g. public/private methods, methods that share a decorator, methods with a common prefix, etc. • Includes every method of the class (so that the documentation is complete), while still making it easy for the user to get a sense for what the class does and find what they’re looking for. • Collapses inherited methods. Complex classes in particular can inherit a lot of methods from their parent classes, and while these methods should be present in the TOC (since they’re part of the class), collapsing them makes it easier for the user to grok the functionality provided by the class itself. autoclasstoc provides a new Restructured Text directive that is all of these things. It also works well with autodoc and autogen, and should be easy to incorporate into any existing project. See the complete documentation (https://autoclasstoc.readthedocs.io/en/latest) for more information (including examples). Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80955304 F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80955305 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80955306
I missed that pyproject-rpm-macros was actually not handling the license file here. Fixed: New spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220107/python-autoclasstoc.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20220107/python-autoclasstoc-1.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. (ignore - rpm-autospec is okay) - At first, I was going to ask about using %forgemeta, but I see that there's no setup.py in the repo. 😉 ✅ Approved. ===== 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". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- autoclasstoc/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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-autoclasstoc [x]: 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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/autoclasstoc/autoclasstoc-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a9f7ef65c509274ac2de3bb588ba0edf381af54ad98dc5044db130a40eed872f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a9f7ef65c509274ac2de3bb588ba0edf381af54ad98dc5044db130a40eed872f Requires -------- python3-autoclasstoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(docutils) python3.10dist(sphinx) python-autoclasstoc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-autoclasstoc: python-autoclasstoc python3-autoclasstoc python3.10-autoclasstoc python3.10dist(autoclasstoc) python3dist(autoclasstoc) python-autoclasstoc-doc: python-autoclasstoc-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-autoclasstoc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, Ocaml, Perl, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! Repository requested.
(In reply to Major Hayden 🤠 from comment #2) > - At first, I was going to ask about using %forgemeta, but I see that > there's no setup.py in the repo. 😉 The GitHub tarball would be fine. We can build straight from pyproject.toml using pyproject-rpm-macros or anything that understands PEP 517[1]; the setup.py is just for legacy use. On the other hand, there are some reasons to prefer a PyPI sdist when it’s usable. For example, some projects have weird release processes such that the GitHub archives have unexpected version numbers in their metadata, and it’s easy to miss these. Usually I end up picking the GitHub archive because the PyPI sdist is missing some tests or documentation, but that’s not the case here. ---- The “forge” macros have their advocates and their detractors[2]. I’ve often used them and recommended them, but I too have started to feel that it’s often simpler not to use them, e.g. > URL: https://github.com/foo/bar > Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/bar-%{version}.tar.gz They *do* make it simpler to build the snapshot information field when packaging from a particular git commit rather than a release or tag, but it turns out they’re not doing it in the currently-recommended way[3], so I’ve even been gradually switching those packages away from these macros. [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5NAY5FWFC6K2HZNQU37MCOZ56R2GWTBT/ [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048362
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-autoclasstoc
FEDORA-2022-52134be47e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-52134be47e
FEDORA-2022-52134be47e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-7016baf376 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7016baf376
FEDORA-2022-2eae9f476f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2eae9f476f
FEDORA-2022-fbe26e21ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbe26e21ee
FEDORA-2022-7016baf376 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7016baf376` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7016baf376 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2eae9f476f 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-2022-2eae9f476f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2eae9f476f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fbe26e21ee 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-fbe26e21ee` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fbe26e21ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2eae9f476f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-fbe26e21ee has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-7016baf376 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.