Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-setupmeta/python-setupmeta.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-setupmeta/python-setupmeta-3.3.2-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: Writing a setup.py typically involves lots of boilerplate and copy-pasting from project to project. This package aims to simplify that and bring some DRY principle to python packaging. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93271431
I'm taking this.
Just one issue: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => Please add LICENSE file to package using %license Once fixed the package is good to go --> 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. [!]: 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. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [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 20480 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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- No errors. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/setupmeta/setupmeta-3.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 221463a64d2528ba558f14b087410e05a7ef0dab17d19004f124a262d6e007f5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 221463a64d2528ba558f14b087410e05a7ef0dab17d19004f124a262d6e007f5 Requires -------- python3-setupmeta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-setupmeta: python-setupmeta python3-setupmeta python3.11-setupmeta python3.11dist(setupmeta) python3dist(setupmeta)
Thanks for the quick review, Sandro The license file is included by the pyproject macros: rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./results_python-setupmeta/3.3.2/2.fc38/python3-setupmeta-3.3.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setupmeta-3.3.2.dist-info/LICENSE This, unfortunately, needs to be checked manually at the moment from what I know---fedora-review doesn't pick it up. Requesting SCM now.
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4) > The license file is included by the pyproject macros: > > rpm -ql --licensefiles -p > ./results_python-setupmeta/3.3.2/2.fc38/python3-setupmeta-3.3.2-2.fc38. > noarch.rpm > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setupmeta-3.3.2.dist-info/LICENSE I thought the license files still need to go into /usr/share/licenses/%{name}. But looking at the Licensing Guide it's a bit vague regarding that requirement. Using %license, as suggested in the Licensing Guide, would put it there. One advantage of having it in /usr/share/licenses is that it makes it transparent looking at files.dir from fedora-review.
I'm not sure if this applies here, but reading Miro's comment for his Root License Directory patch [1] seems to suggest, that you still need to use %license in the spec file: %pyproject_save_files: Support License-Files installed into the *Root License Directory* from PEP 369 Files still need to be marked as License-File to be considered %license, but if their path in METADATA is specified relative to dist-info/licenses, they are correctly recognised. This makes License-Files specified by hatchling 1.9.0+ marked as %license. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/c/92ad52e5d4b941ebc70de84dbd53569dc5ea32b7?branch=rawhide
No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license file is already part of --licensefiles. There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct metadata. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_spec_file and look up %license. My comment for the Root License Directory patch does say that files marked as License-File in upstream metadata are marked as %license in the file list. It does not say that you should duplicate the %license entry at all.
Thanks for the clarification. I was going by the Licensing Guide, which says: "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 must be included in %license" That made me think the LICENSE file has to be explicitly included as %license LICENSE. If the marking by %pyproject_save_files is sufficient, I guess I can clean up my own spec files and remove the explicit %license LICENSE, which indeed duplicates the LICENSE file.
%pyproject_save_files marks it as %licens,e if the upstream metadata marks it as License-File.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license > file is already part of --licensefiles. > > There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in > /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and > %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct > metadata. > > See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #_example_spec_file and look up %license. This comes up a *lot*. I’d like to propose that we explicitly clarify this point in the Licensing Guidelines, but I haven’t yet figured out how to word it without making the relevant section too verbose and meandering.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > > No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license > > file is already part of --licensefiles. > > > > There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in > > /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and > > %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct > > metadata. > > > > See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > #_example_spec_file and look up %license. > > This comes up a *lot*. I’d like to propose that we explicitly clarify this > point in the Licensing Guidelines, but I haven’t yet figured out how to word > it without making the relevant section too verbose and meandering. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223