Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/python3-augeas/epel-7-ppc64le/03231377-python3-augeas/python3-augeas.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fschwarz/python3-augeas/epel-7-ppc64le/03231377-python3-augeas/python3-augeas-1.1.0-1.el7.src.rpm Description: python3-augeas is a set of Python bindings around augeas. Fedora Account System Username: fschwarz This is the Python 3 version of python-augeas. We need a Python 3 version in EPEL 7 to update certbot in EPEL 7 (see bug 1823048 and bug 1797129). EPEL 7 has a very old Python 2 version of python-augeas and upstream fixed many problems in the 1.1.0 version so I think it is beneficial to get the newer version in EPEL 7. (Also EPEL 7 contains many "ancient" versions and so far certbot upstream tried to accomodate our requirements. However we might run into a situation where upstream won't a workarounds for really old versions so using a somewhat modern version seems to be better for EPEL.) Please note that I intend to provide this package in EPEL 7 only. We don't need it for any other branch. See also bug 1949831 comment 9 .
@Greg adding you as you are the maintainer for python-augeas in Fedora+EPEL. I guess you are fine with adding a python3 subpackage for EPEL7 only (as you did not react to my comment in bug 1949831 comment 9). If you have any objections please let me know.
This should have been an EPEL package review of course :-)
Adding @defolos as my sponsor. This review was done against el7, not rawhide as mentioned in previous comment. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== None. ===== 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. [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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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 ------- No rpmlint output Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- No rpmlint output Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/archive/v1.1.0/python-augeas-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a1d2cdaf2ad4c091ed5ec7976c52d16e14ecfbf40b1bdcaced2465255fb0f87 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a1d2cdaf2ad4c091ed5ec7976c52d16e14ecfbf40b1bdcaced2465255fb0f87 Requires -------- python3-augeas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): augeas-libs python(abi) python36-cffi Provides -------- python3-augeas: python3-augeas python3.6dist(python-augeas) python36-augeas Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043744 -D EPEL7 -D DISTTAG=el7 -m epel-7-x86_64 --mock-options=--yum Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, BATCH, EXARCH
Unable to add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blocks
(In reply to Matthew Davis from comment #4) > Unable to add FE-NEEDSPONSOR to blocks Please ignore - Misread the definition. Since I am not a packager, I thought my sponsor needed to double check my review.
Thanks for the informal review Matthew! The package looks good to me, I have approved it. Nevertheless, please consider fixing the following: - you have two downstream(?) patches, please consider sending them upstream or explaining in the spec why they will not be upstreamed - upstream uses sphinx to build the documentation, could you build it as well or is that a big hurdle on epel? ===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]". 123 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/2043744-python3-augeas/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 [-]: 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. [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 2 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]: 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: [-]: 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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/archive/v1.1.0/python-augeas-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a1d2cdaf2ad4c091ed5ec7976c52d16e14ecfbf40b1bdcaced2465255fb0f87 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a1d2cdaf2ad4c091ed5ec7976c52d16e14ecfbf40b1bdcaced2465255fb0f87 Requires -------- python3-augeas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): augeas-libs python(abi) python3-cffi python3.10dist(cffi) Provides -------- python3-augeas: python-augeas python3-augeas python3.10-augeas python3.10dist(python-augeas) python3dist(python-augeas) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2043744 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, R, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, PHP, Java, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for your reviews. Both patches are already present in upstream (master) but there is no official release. I assumed this would be obvious from the patch files itself (header/commit id): - https://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/commit/f74c4a8206c5a7f28836cbe3cd043bc481c5e518 - https://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/commit/e3bf8ab066e842a52ab7d96e9b473452e3109723 I'll look into also building the documentation though at this point I don't anyone is likely to use the augeas docs on EPEL 7 - after all this distro is mostly in maintenance mode and I assume development would happen on newer distro versions.
(In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #7) > Thank you for your reviews. > > Both patches are already present in upstream (master) but there is no > official release. I assumed this would be obvious from the patch files > itself (header/commit id): > > - > https://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/commit/ > f74c4a8206c5a7f28836cbe3cd043bc481c5e518 > - > https://github.com/hercules-team/python-augeas/commit/ > e3bf8ab066e842a52ab7d96e9b473452e3109723 Adding just a comment into the spec would make this more obvious imho, but this is just my personal recommendation, so feel free to do whatever works for you. > I'll look into also building the documentation though at this point I don't > anyone is likely to use the augeas docs on EPEL 7 - after all this distro is > mostly in maintenance mode and I assume development would happen on newer > distro versions. Yeah that makes sense, so maybe just skip this step then.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-augeas. You may commit to the branch "epel7" in about 10 minutes.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5c2b3632f9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5c2b3632f9
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5c2b3632f9 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-2022-5c2b3632f9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5c2b3632f9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.