Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/python-icapclient3-1.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: A Python3 module for creating ICAP clients. The module API is somewhat inspired by the httplib python module. This module is written in pure C, and uses the C-ICAP library to handle the ICAP protocol. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
Depends on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983
Hi Simone, Just a few nitpicks on your spec. > %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3} Using the %{python3_pkgversion} macro instead of using 3 on the BuildRequires packages, makes it harder to read. Usually, it is a better practice to drop the %{python3_pkgversion} macro. > %global srcname icapclient3 Another readability nit, setting and using this makes the spec file harder to read. Using the literal name makes it easier to read. Moreover, sometimes you don't even use this macro and write "icapclient3" literally. > %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}} This is deprecated and shouldn't be used. Check the note at the end of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/#_the_py_provides_macro NOTE: I'm not a packager yet and currently looking for sponsorship. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal
@negativo17 I've done a review, and everything pretty much passes. There are just three items I want to confirm before publishing it: > [ ]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. > Note: Sources not installed I don't believe there is any bundled(gnulib), and this is just a bug in fedora-review. Is that correct? > [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include I know you have included the LICENSE file from upstream, and also that there has been no new release for some years, but have you or can you add an issue upstream for it to be included in any future release. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. I assume there is no suitable checks and it is unlikely ever to occur. Am I correct about that? Once I get confirmation on those points, I'll publish the review and we should be good to go.
P.S. I assume the response to Maíra Canal is because you have set up the spec file to be compatible with EPEL, including even EPEL7?