Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sicherha/python-jenkins-job-builder/fedora-36-x86_64/04412497-python-jenkins-job-builder/python-jenkins-job-builder.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sicherha/python-jenkins-job-builder/fedora-36-x86_64/04412497-python-jenkins-job-builder/python-jenkins-job-builder-4.0.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML Fedora Account System Username: sicherha
You can drop the mock dependency since it's only needed for Python 2. I've failed that on the review below. I also wonder if you've considered rewriting the spec using modern RPM packaging macros, but I wouldn't demand that. I put a question mark on that in the review below. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-mock is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jenkins-job-builder See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 2253 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ekohl/dev/rpm/python-jenkins-job-builder/2084340-python-jenkins- job-builder/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. [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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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. [?]: 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. [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. [-]: 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: [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://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/j/jenkins-job-builder/jenkins-job-builder-4.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e9bb22ab72f094165d177efc1d710881948a7fb36c4e3a376db4a6b7b5e46203 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9bb22ab72f094165d177efc1d710881948a7fb36c4e3a376db4a6b7b5e46203 Requires -------- python3-jenkins-job-builder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(fasteners) python3.10dist(jinja2) python3.10dist(pbr) python3.10dist(python-jenkins) python3.10dist(pyyaml) python3.10dist(six) python3.10dist(stevedore) Provides -------- python3-jenkins-job-builder: python-jenkins-job-builder python3-jenkins-job-builder python3.10-jenkins-job-builder python3.10dist(jenkins-job-builder) python3dist(jenkins-job-builder) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2084340 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, R, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! I have adjusted the links above in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2084340#c0. Changes compared to the original revision: * Drop mock dependency * Use modern RPM macros
If you use -f %{pyproject_files} in %files it shouldn't be needed to list various files. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros I also noticed the URL is a redirect to https://jenkins-job-builder.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ so it may be good to update that. Looks like the project moved away from the OpenStack umbrella. As for the build dependencies passing test-requirements.txt, but this pulls in much more than you actually need for the test suite to pass (like sphinx). I think listing them manually (as you do now) is a good solution. If you apply the following patch I think this should be ready. --- 2084340-python-jenkins-job-builder/srpm/python-jenkins-job-builder.spec 2022-05-13 12:02:57.836904047 +0200 +++ python-jenkins-job-builder.spec 2022-05-13 12:14:16.295051293 +0200 @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Epoch: 1 Summary: Manage Jenkins jobs with YAML License: ASL 2.0 -URL: https://docs.openstack.org/infra/jenkins-job-builder/ +URL: https://jenkins-job-builder.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ Source: %{pypi_source} # Relax version dependency on PyYAML (upstream patch) @@ -52,15 +52,14 @@ %install %pyproject_install +%pyproject_save_files jenkins_jobs %check stestr run -%files -n python3-%{srcname} +%files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %{_bindir}/jenkins-jobs -%{python3_sitelib}/jenkins_job_builder-*.dist-info/ -%{python3_sitelib}/jenkins_jobs/ %changelog * Wed May 11 2022 Christoph Erhardt <fedora> - 1:4.0.0-1
Patch applied, thank you!
I'd like to approve, but this is the first time I do so. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/ states I should set the fedora-review flag to +, but I don't see that flag at all nor do I see any way I could add the flag. I'm not sure who could help with this. Perhaps it's sufficient to open a fesco ticket now to reinstate and they can see my comment here.
Please try again. The flag was unavailable because I had used the wrong value for the 'Component' field: the correct value would have been 'Package Review', not the package's name itself. Thanks to Tomas for fixing this.
I suspected that it was indeed related to the component, but wasn't entirely sure and didn't want to go poke around at it. Here you go.
FEDORA-2022-6728b661eb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6728b661eb
FEDORA-2022-6728b661eb 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-2022-6728b661eb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6728b661eb See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-40b743a51f 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-2022-40b743a51f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-40b743a51f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-40b743a51f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.