COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/supakeen/for-review/package/python-token_bucket/ Description: A Token Bucket implementation. Fedora Account System Username: supakeen Happy sunday, this is my first contribution and my first package, I'm looking for any things I might have missed during my reading of the Python Packaging guide. I have informed the maintainer of this package that I plan to package for Fedora here: https://github.com/falconry/token-bucket/issues/16 If this package is reviewed and found to be adequate (after potential changes) I would need a sponsor :) supakeen
Notes: - Please use SRPM and SPEC file links in rhbz next time, so that fedora-review -b works, that's much easier than hunting through copr to find the rawhide build srpm. - Should the package be named python-token-bucket? (eg the name on pypi with the python- prefix), as per fedora guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_library_naming The Fedora package’s name SHOULD contain the Canonical project name. If possible, the project name SHOULD be the same as the name of the main importable module, with underscores (_) replaced by dashes (-). 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/python- token_bucket/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). [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. See note at top [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. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python Note: see name issue at top [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). [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. [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). Rpmlint ------- rpmlint python3-token_bucket-0.3.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-token_bucket-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/falconry/token-bucket/archive/refs/tags/0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58a9744f11289fe780e2a93da773db2d0872ddc9dcd9a34036b1912557450156 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58a9744f11289fe780e2a93da773db2d0872ddc9dcd9a34036b1912557450156 Requires -------- python3-token_bucket (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-token_bucket: python-token_bucket python3-token_bucket python3.10-token_bucket python3.10dist(token-bucket) python3dist(token-bucket) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-token_bucket-0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm --rpm-spec Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review Thomas, I was away from my keyboard for an extended amount of time, I've rebuilt the package now under the correct python-token-bucket name, I'll relink those files here: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/supakeen/for-review/fedora-35-x86_64/03847545-python-token-bucket/python-token-bucket.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/supakeen/for-review/fedora-35-x86_64/03847545-python-token-bucket/python-token-bucket-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Is there anything else you need and I can provide? Regards, supakeen
Hey Thomas, the other package you reviewed for me (python-pygments-better-html) has fully made it through into f35/f36 now which is awesome! Is there anything I need to do on this review for it to be marked accepted? Regards, supakeen
Also, my apologies by using "Thomas" twice instead of "Paul", I'm confusing someone else I know by the same last name with you :)
I'm going to follow the stalled review procedure here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#stalled which means I'll reassign the ticket in a week :)
I've reassigned this ticket :)
Resetting the review means also resetting Status and fedora-review flag.
sorry, I missed this and will pick it up again
Thanks for the name fix. Package APPROVED
Thank you Paul!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-token-bucket
FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b
FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f7503ca58b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.