Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/main/python-mbstrdecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/raw/main/python-mbstrdecoder-1.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: multi-byte character string decoder Fedora Account System Username: karolinku
Hello, this is my first package and I need a sponsor. I'm a RDO project contributor and already have some pull requests for Fedora packages done: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-croniter/pull-request/6 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyroute2/pull-request/12 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-openstacksdk/pull-request/6 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django-compressor/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ldappool/pull-request/6 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-requests-mock/pull-request/6 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tinyrpc/pull-request/3 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-croniter/pull-request/5 For RDO project development purposes I'd like to maintain more packages in future.
kindly asking for a review
Note that the review request will be easier if the spec url shows the full content and it is not embedded in html. In order to do the first round I use fedora-review and the layout above it is not tool friendly. As an example you can change the spec url to: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/main/python-mbstrdecoder.spec
Thank you. You need to do the also the same for the source rpm. For exactly that same reason, fedora-review (or any other tool) will download the content of it: In my quick view this should work: https://github.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/blob/main/python-mbstrdecoder-1.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm?raw=true FWIW I am a sponsor. :-)
Several small notes: 1) notice that you do not need to update the first comment. You can add a later comment so that the last comment with the source and spec urls will always be considered the reference location; 2) in order to ensure that fedora-review works it is enough to install it and then run it in the path where the directory will be created: fedora-review -b 2089243 The number after the -b corresponds to the number of this entry. Meanwhile I will need to download the files by hand. :-)
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/main/python-mbstrdecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/blob/main/python-mbstrdecoder-1.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm?raw=true
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/main/python-mbstrdecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/raw/main/python-mbstrdecoder-1.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm
`fedora-review -b 2089243` is working fine now
(In reply to kkula from comment #8) > `fedora-review -b 2089243` is working fine now You are right, my bad. :-( Actually the June is Portugal national day and so it is holiday. :-) The review is almost ready: There is just one minor point to explore: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatically-generated-dependencies it says: Packages SHOULD use the opt-in build-dependency generator if possible. Could you try to see if this works? In the sense that you can remove all the BR (leaving of course python3-devel). BTW as far as I understand pyproject-rpm-macros is also redundant, as BuildRequires, since: $ repoquery --requires python3-devel Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:53 ago on Thu 16 Jun 2022 08:45:02 AM WEST. (pyproject-rpm-macros if rpm-build) (python-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build) (python3-rpm-generators if rpm-build) (python3-rpm-macros >= 3.10-9 if rpm-build) /usr/bin/pkg-config /usr/bin/sh libpython3.10.so.1.0 libpython3.10.so.1.0()(64bit) python3 = 3.10.4-1.fc36 python3 = 3.10.5-2.fc36 python3-libs(x86-32) = 3.10.4-1.fc36 python3-libs(x86-32) = 3.10.5-2.fc36 python3-libs(x86-64) = 3.10.4-1.fc36 python3-libs(x86-64) = 3.10.5-2.fc36 That means that when you BuildRequire python3-devel is bring as a dependency. I will look into this tomorrow, again sorry for the delay.
yes, you are right about build dep generation. I updated spec file by removing all BR's except python-devel.
(In reply to kkula from comment #10) > yes, you are right about build dep generation. > I updated spec file by removing all BR's except python-devel. Just a small followup: last week, on Monday, when I intend to proceed with this process the package failed to build on rawhide, not due to any problem with the package but because of the turmoil from the transition to python 3.11. Tomorrow I will take the time to conclude this process, and to add you to the maintainers list. Apologies for the several delays... :-(
is there any additional action needed now on my side or can I help?
(In reply to kkula from comment #12) > is there any additional action needed now on my side or can I help? None, you are sponsored. This takes very short time to take effect (around one hour)... I am sorry, a flue, a conference (in person) and some other shenanigans delayed this process more than what is reasonable. :-( I will finish the review and I you will be able to proceed with the process.
OK, the issue now is that the package requires python-chardet. You can see that in requirements/requirements.txt it has the following content: chardet>=3.0.4,<5 Interestingly in June Miro orphaned the package: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QCCBDPEONUGX2BU5L7ODCIJPBHJ6SIM2/ The package was picked and was updated to version 5.0.0: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-chardet I picked this since the reviews should be done against rawhide, for all the other releases this is not an issue. My suggestion is to check if this package works with chardet >= 5 and in that case please patch the requirements file to remove the ,<5. In my experience most of the time these dependencies are preventive and unnecessary. There are naturally exceptions but you can try. The easiest way to try is to build the package and see if there are any failures in the tests. From the release notes there is not any red herring: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/5.0.0 Again apologies for the delay, feel free to ask any question.
OK, I checked and removed chardet <5 requirement. I'll also make PR to upstream.
Please provide an url for the new version here, increasing the Release counter. That is the standard procedure for package reviews. After each iteration, when there are changes in the spec file, the source rpm is regenerated and the new urls are provided for review.
For what is worth I am still struggling with the new rules regarding the license that should go in License now: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/ This package seems simple in this regard but I want to ensure that I got everything right. Meanwhile please proceed with the other changes.
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/main/python-mbstrdecoder.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/karolinku/python-mbstrdecoder-sources/raw/main/python-mbstrdecoder-1.1.0-2.fc37.src.rpm
New version of spec file is ready to review
The package is approved. You are already a packager, I have sponsored you. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamatos/tmp/fedora/2089243-python- mbstrdecoder/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [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). [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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/m/mbstrdecoder/mbstrdecoder-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f4dfd549e424ad8dfc985e6af8b55cb4ec0c208782f610d57439fe6a9a44c244 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4dfd549e424ad8dfc985e6af8b55cb4ec0c208782f610d57439fe6a9a44c244 Requires -------- python3-mbstrdecoder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-chardet python3.11dist(chardet) Provides -------- python3-mbstrdecoder: python-mbstrdecoder python3-mbstrdecoder python3.11-mbstrdecoder python3.11dist(mbstrdecoder) python3dist(mbstrdecoder) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2089243 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Apologies for the delay Karolina. Feel free to ask any questions regarding packaging or any other Fedora related issue. The Fedora Python community is very friendly. :-)
Thank you for your help:) As soon as you mark the review as approved, I will request for a repo.
(In reply to kkula from comment #22) > Thank you for your help:) > As soon as you mark the review as approved, I will request for a repo. Oops, I thought that I did... done now.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mbstrdecoder