Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pyproject-metadata/python-pyproject-metadata.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-pyproject-metadata/python-pyproject-metadata-0.6.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Dataclass for PEP 621 metadata with support for core metadata generation. This project does not implement the parsing of pyproject.toml containing PEP 621 metadata. Instead, given a Python data structure representing PEP 621 metadata (already parsed), it will validate this input and generate a PEP 643-compliant metadata file (e.g. PKG-INFO). This is a rename review request, from python-pep621 to python-pyproject-metadata. A package under the previous name was added to Fedora just 3 months ago. I am happy to exchange reviews.
Taking this, can you review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2111995 in exchange?
Only remark, I suppose you could use %pyproject_buildrequires rather than listing the BRs. Aside from that, looks good to me, 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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== 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. [?]: 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. [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: [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 ------- OK Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FFY00/python-pyproject-metadata/archive/0.6.1/python-pyproject-metadata-0.6.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f652b6b632ecd01afb1cc702b2f8934688aaba957b8291b0230854ae521309a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f652b6b632ecd01afb1cc702b2f8934688aaba957b8291b0230854ae521309a Requires -------- python3-pyproject-metadata (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(packaging) Provides -------- python3-pyproject-metadata: python-pyproject-metadata python3-pep621 python3-pyproject-metadata python3.11-pyproject-metadata python3.11dist(pyproject-metadata) python3dist(pyproject-metadata) Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2111269 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, Java, PHP, C/C++, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #2) > Only remark, I suppose you could use %pyproject_buildrequires rather than > listing the BRs. I deliberately avoid %pyproject_buildrequires, because I have developed a workflow that includes the use of grep on spec files to manage dependency trees. With %pyproject_buildrequires, the dependencies are hidden from grep. > Aside from that, looks good to me, package approved! Thank you!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyproject-metadata
Built in Rawhide.