Spec URL: : https://download.nohats.ca/python-simple-salesforce/python-simple-salesforce.spec SRPM URL: https://download.nohats.ca/python-simple-salesforce/python-simple-salesforce-1.11.5-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Simple Salesforce is a basic Salesforce.com REST API client built for Python. The goal is to provide a very low-level interface to the REST Resource and APEX API, returning a dictionary of the API JSON response. Fedora Account System Username: pwouters
I am not a packager yet, but I have a package that has been approved (bz 2040118) and I am looking for a sponsor. I have no experience packaging python applications, but I do have two comments about your spec file: URL: https://github.com/simple-salesforce/simple-salesforce Source0: https://github.com/simple-salesforce/simple-salesforce/archive/%{commit}/simple-salesforce-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz is better written as URL: https://github.com/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name} Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{pypi_name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz And you can avoid duplicating text using: %global _description %{expand: Simple Salesforce is a basic Salesforce.com REST API client built for Python. The goal is to provide a very low-level interface to the REST Resource and APEX API, returning a dictionary of the API JSON response.} ... %description %{_description} ... %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} %{_description} Hope this helps.
that's fair :) I try not to overuse macros, and only use it in case there is really a re-usable part to it, which in this case there is. I've updated the spec/srpm I sponsored you for your package, so once you have that going, perhaps you can run a full "fedora-review -b 2059313" on this and do a full review? :)
The LICENSE.txt does not match the License: BSD in the spec file. The setup.py file seems to be consistent with the LICENSE.txt file, so it looks like the License: field should be "ASL 2.0". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses I think you need to regenerate the SRPM since its spec file is different from the one mentioned above.
Hmmm. I see that the README.rst file mentions another license, MIT. That file says that the "package is released under an open source Apache 2.0 license". But that file does not describe what files in the source are licensed under the MIT license. I am not sure what to do about that. Does the MIT license allow for "re-licensing"?
if you run fedora-review -b 2059313 you will see the licenses of all files, eg: *No copyright* Apache License ----------------------------- simple-salesforce-871ffd855f961aa0ebd721ea5b1476ff3a4ef385/setup.py MIT License Apache License 2.0 ------------------------------ simple-salesforce-871ffd855f961aa0ebd721ea5b1476ff3a4ef385/LICENSE.txt Unknown or generated -------------------- [lots of files] Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses the license should be specified as "ASL 2.0". I will fix that. Running fedora-review is the way to do a full review. Go try it :) Then you want to "take" this bug at the top, set it to assigned, set the fedora-review flag to "?". Then depending on the result of the review, you would set it to - or +. If set to -, I should fix something else first and upload new srpm/spec file. If the license is the only thing left, you can also (after adding the fedora-review text to this bug) also say "APPROVED but please fix license to ALS 2.0"
(In reply to Paul Wouters from comment #5) > if you run fedora-review -b 2059313 you will see the licenses of all files, That's what I did to discover that the spec file didn't match the text in setup.py and LICENSE.txt. I also see from the upstream source, README.rst, another license altogether. It isn't specific about which files contain the applicable code, but it mentions: Authentication mechanisms were adapted from Dave Wingate's RestForce and licensed under a MIT license I do not know why fedora-review doesn't flag that file. I reviewed the Guidelines::Python document and I believe that your spec file is quite "vanilla" -- it seems to follow precisely the template in that document. I have no real experience with packaging Python and very little experience programming in Python (I'm a C programmer :), so I hope I didn't miss anything Python-specific here. > Then you want to "take" this bug at the top, set it to assigned, set the > fedora-review flag to "?". > Then depending on the result of the review, you would set it to - or +. If > set to -, I should fix something else first and upload new srpm/spec file. > If the license is the only thing left, you can also (after adding the > fedora-review text to this bug) also say "APPROVED but please fix license to > ALS 2.0" OK, assuming that README.rst isn't a problem and that you will modify the spec file to show License: ASL 2.0 and that the SRPM is updated to contain the updated spec file, PACKAGE APPROVED. 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. [!]: 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 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/garry/2059313-python-simple- salesforce/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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: 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 61440 bytes in 10 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. [-]: 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: [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. [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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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://github.com/simple-salesforce/simple-salesforce/archive/871ffd855f961aa0ebd721ea5b1476ff3a4ef385/simple-salesforce-871ffd8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26770c91a36538b021b0dc3557af584a26c7e702ef4f8ac078255be600bacfd0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26770c91a36538b021b0dc3557af584a26c7e702ef4f8ac078255be600bacfd0 Requires -------- python3-simple-salesforce (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(authlib) python3.10dist(requests) python3.10dist(zeep) Provides -------- python3-simple-salesforce: python-simple-salesforce python3-simple-salesforce python3.10-simple-salesforce python3.10dist(simple-salesforce) python3dist(simple-salesforce) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/garry/2059313-python-simple-salesforce/srpm/python-simple-salesforce.spec 2022-03-11 14:45:08.294192414 -0500 +++ /home/garry/2059313-python-simple-salesforce/srpm-unpacked/python-simple-salesforce.spec 2022-02-28 11:30:08.000000000 -0500 @@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ Summary: Simple Salesforce is a basic Salesforce.com REST API client built for Python License: BSD -URL: https://github.com/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name} -Source0: %{url}/archive/%{commit}/%{pypi_name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz +URL: https://github.com/simple-salesforce/simple-salesforce +Source0: https://github.com/simple-salesforce/simple-salesforce/archive/%{commit}/simple-salesforce-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz BuildArch: noarch @@ -22,10 +22,8 @@ BuildRequires: python3-pylint -%global _description %{expand: +%description Simple Salesforce is a basic Salesforce.com REST API client built for Python. The goal is to provide a very low-level interface to the REST Resource and APEX -API, returning a dictionary of the API JSON response. } - -%description %{_description} +API, returning a dictionary of the API JSON response. %package -n python3-%{pypi_name} @@ -33,5 +31,7 @@ %description -n python3-%{pypi_name} -%{_description} +Simple Salesforce is a basic Salesforce.com REST API client built for Python. +The goal is to provide a very low-level interface to the REST Resource and APEX +API, returning a dictionary of the API JSON response. %prep Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2059313 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, C/C++, Java, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Ocaml, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
yeah MIT and Apache 2.0 license are kind of the same. Will set it to ASL 2.0
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-simple-salesforce
FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e
FEDORA-2022-d3daac0138 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d3daac0138
FEDORA-2022-f5938a9df5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f5938a9df5
FEDORA-2022-f5938a9df5 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-2022-f5938a9df5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f5938a9df5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-d3daac0138 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-2022-d3daac0138 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d3daac0138 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ecb902cf3e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-f5938a9df5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d3daac0138 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.