Spec URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-flake8-path/python-pytest-flake8-path.spec SRPM URL: https://cottsay.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-flake8-path/python-pytest-flake8-path-1.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: pytest-flake8-path is the successor to pytest-flake8dir. pytest-flake8dir was based upon pytest’s tmpdir fixture, which returned a legacy py.path.local object. Since version 3.9.0, pytest has provided the tmp_path fixture, which returns a standard library pathlib.Path object. pytest-flake8-path is a rewrite of pytest-flake8dir to use tmp_path instead of tmpdir. Fedora Account System Username: cottsay Target branches: rawhide f37 f36 epel9 Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94313123 Thanks!
This is an informal review as I'm not a sponsor. The upstream project is using MIT license on Modern Style with sublicense, so it's matched in the spec. For the require, the package require: Requires -------- python3-pytest-flake8-path (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8) python3.11dist(pytest) as in the setup.cfg: install_requires = flake8 pytest so it matches. And provide is accurate with the test install the built rpm locally. Also rpmlint pass locally with against the srpm, rpm and sepc. # rpmlint results/python3-pytest-flake8-path-1.3.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s ==================================== # rpmlint results/python-pytest-flake8-path-1.3.0-1.fc38.src.rpm =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ==================================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ==================================== # rpmlint srpm/python-pytest-flake8-path.spec =================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ==================================== 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s ==================================== With fedora-review and manually review: 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". [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. [x]: 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 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: [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). [?]: 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. [x]: %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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: 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://github.com/adamchainz/pytest-flake8-path/archive/1.3.0/pytest-flake8-path-1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 913826eeabebc51125fb24987851cb0b2096a55cea0fb9a1765a876fb888b683 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 913826eeabebc51125fb24987851cb0b2096a55cea0fb9a1765a876fb888b683 Requires -------- python3-pytest-flake8-path (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(flake8) python3.11dist(pytest) Provides -------- python3-pytest-flake8-path: python-pytest-flake8-path python3-pytest-flake8-path python3.11-pytest-flake8-path python3.11dist(pytest-flake8-path) python3dist(pytest-flake8-path) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2144097 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, Haskell, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
> This is an informal review as I'm not a sponsor. Just a note about terminology (I know it is a lot) a sponsor is a person who can add members to the packager group (e.g me). To do a formal review, you don't need to be a sponsor, you just need to be "sponsored" -- a.k.a. be a member of the packager group. =========================== Upstream uses pytest-randomly to run the tests, which is packaged in Fedora, so we might as well do the same. All the test-deps are in requirements/requirements.in. Pseudo-diff: BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel -BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-pytest %generate_buildrequires -%pyproject_buildrequires +%pyproject_buildrequires requirements/requirements.in =========================== A total nit-pick about the spec - the number of blank lines between sections is generally 2, but there is only one blank line between %prep and %generate_buildrequires: %prep %autosetup -p1 -n %{srcname}-%{version} %generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires Anyway, APPROVED on your behalf.
> ...All the test-deps are in requirements/requirements.in... Applied verbatim, works as expected. I didn't realize you could use pyproject_buildrequires like this - thanks! > ...the number of blank lines between sections is generally 2, but there is only one blank line between %prep and %generate_buildrequires I didn't realize that generate_buildrequires was a full-blown spec section - the syntax highlighting hasn't caught up yet. I'll make that change in my other reviews, too! Thanks for the review, folks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-flake8-path
FEDORA-2022-3471e3df1f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3471e3df1f
FEDORA-2022-3471e3df1f has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b27797d40b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b27797d40b
FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c
FEDORA-2022-421f1afe50 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-421f1afe50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-421f1afe50 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c 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 --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b27797d40b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b27797d40b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-2402dc7d1c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-421f1afe50 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b27797d40b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.