Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxext-rediraffe/python-sphinxext-rediraffe.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinxext-rediraffe/python-sphinxext-rediraffe-0.2.7-1.fc37.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This sphinx extension redirects non-existent pages to working pages. Rediraffe can also check that deleted/renamed files in your git repo are redirected. Rediraffe creates a graph of all specified redirects and traverses it to point all internal urls to leaf urls. This means that chained redirects will be resolved. For example, if a config has 6 chained redirects, all 6 links will redirect directly to the final link. The end user will never experience more than 1 redirection. Note: Rediraffe supports the html and dirhtml builders.
Approved, but with two important notes. First, please consider generating BuildRequires as suggested in the Issues section below. The ability to do this is a huge benefit of the pyproject-rpm-macros, and it’s how they are normally intended to be used. Second, since you are probably packaging this to generate HTML documentation with it, please note that even though we have historically packaged Sphinx-generated HTML documentation, it’s been pointed out that the generated documentation includes bundled and pre-minified JavaScript and CSS that seems to be incompatible with the packaging guidelines as currently written. See bug 2006555 and https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for discussion on the topic. Building PDF documentation instead is probably an acceptable workaround; I can provide examples, PRs, and debugging assistance if you ever want to go in that direction for a particular package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - It would be simpler and more reliable to generate the BuildRequires using pyproject-rpm-macros. You can remove: BuildRequires: %{py3_dist jinja2} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pip} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist setuptools} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist wheel} and add (conventionally after %prep to correspond to the order of execution) %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires Note that, since this runs after %prep, the generated BR’s include jinja2, which you added in %prep. - Consider filing an issue or PR upstream to add the jinja2 dependency. ===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2080472-python-sphinxext- rediraffe/licensecheck.txt [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/sphinxext(python3-sphinxext-opengraph) Appropriate co-ownership of a Python namespace package directory. [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 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. $ rpm -qL -p results/python3-sphinxext-rediraffe-0.2.7-1.fc37.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinxext_rediraffe-0.2.7.dist-info/LICENSE.md [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Smoke test used; comment justifies not running upstream tests [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. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wpilibsuite/sphinxext-rediraffe/archive/v0.2.7/sphinxext-rediraffe-0.2.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed8ffa0f1777ca2638a479aa01d195302dad05da6794d58f96e9d957f7c9e77a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed8ffa0f1777ca2638a479aa01d195302dad05da6794d58f96e9d957f7c9e77a Requires -------- python3-sphinxext-rediraffe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.10dist(jinja2) python3.10dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinxext-rediraffe: python-sphinxext-rediraffe python3-sphinxext-rediraffe python3.10-sphinxext-rediraffe python3.10dist(sphinxext-rediraffe) python3dist(sphinxext-rediraffe) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2080472 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, R, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH ============================ 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 0.8 s
Oh, one more thing: it would be nice to package the README file by adding > %doc README.md
Thank you for the review, Ben. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #1) > First, please consider generating BuildRequires as suggested in the Issues > section below. The ability to do this is a huge benefit of the > pyproject-rpm-macros, and it’s how they are normally intended to be used. I deliberately don't do that with packages I maintain. I maintain hundreds of packages, and have developed some workflows to deal with that many packages. I grep spec files fairly frequently for various reasons. The BR-generating functionality hides the BRs from me. I have to take extra steps, one package at a time, to recover them. I have chosen to not do that. > Second, since you are probably packaging this to generate HTML documentation > with it, please note that even though we have historically packaged > Sphinx-generated HTML documentation, it’s been pointed out that the > generated documentation includes bundled and pre-minified JavaScript and CSS > that seems to be incompatible with the packaging guidelines as currently > written. See bug 2006555 and > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject. > org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for discussion on the topic. > Building PDF documentation instead is probably an acceptable workaround; I > can provide examples, PRs, and debugging assistance if you ever want to go > in that direction for a particular package. Okay, I can look into generating PDF documentation. > Note that, since this runs after %prep, the generated BR’s include jinja2, > which you > added in %prep. Not exactly. The problem isn't a BR on jinja2, it is a missing runtime dependency (R) on jinja2. I need to talk to upstream about that. (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #2) > Oh, one more thing: it would be nice to package the README file by adding > > > %doc README.md I don't know what you mean. That line is already in the spec file.
> I deliberately don't do that with packages I maintain. I maintain hundreds > of packages, and have developed some workflows to deal with that many > packages. I grep spec files fairly frequently for various reasons. The > BR-generating functionality hides the BRs from me. I have to take extra > steps, one package at a time, to recover them. I have chosen to not do that. I wanted to make sure you were aware of generated BR’s since they make *most* people’s workflows a lot easier. They are not mandatory, and your preference is valid. > > Note that, since this runs after %prep, the generated BR’s include jinja2, > > which you > > added in %prep. > > Not exactly. The problem isn't a BR on jinja2, it is a missing runtime > dependency (R) on jinja2. I need to talk to upstream about that. I was trying to point out—not clearly enough, I suppose—that the jinja2 runtime dependency added in %prep does in fact result in a generated BR on jinja2 just as happens for the other, pre-existing runtime dependencies. This detail doesn’t matter since you won’t be using generated BR’s. > > > %doc README.md > > I don't know what you mean. That line is already in the spec file. That was just a brain glitch on my part, apparently. ----- Since you’ve considered the suggestion to generate BR’s and chosen not to, I think everything is fine here. I see that I had already approved the package since there were no *required* changes, so please carry on!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinxext-rediraffe
FEDORA-2022-f21c57e7a7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f21c57e7a7
FEDORA-2022-f21c57e7a7 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-f21c57e7a7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f21c57e7a7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f21c57e7a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.