Spec URL: https://git.shrug.pw/neil/python-sdnotify/raw/branch/rawhide/python-sdnotify.spec SRPM URL: https://git.shrug.pw/api/packages/neil/generic/python-sdnotify/0.3.2/python-sdnotify-0.3.2-0.fc37.src.rpm Description: This is a pure Python implementation of the systemd sd_notify protocol. This protocol can be used to inform systemd about service start-up completion, watchdog events, and other service status changes. Thus, this package can be used to write system services in Python that play nicely with systemd. sdnotify is compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3. Fedora Account System Username: neil This is my first package in Fedora, and as such I do require a sponsor. I built it against rawhide here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neil/python-sdnotify/
Taking this review. Welcome Neil!
This mostly looks good. Some issues (easily fixable): - the release tag (0) does not match the changelog (1). Since the change to use rpmautospec by default is accepted recently (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default), just use that: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html - this won't work without systemd installed, but the automatic dependency generator will only generate Python dependencies. You'd want to manually `Require: systemd` - the project does not come with any tests, so you probably want to at least add some smoke tests - you're using the new Python %pyproject* macros, so add this (normally after the %install section): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_check_import %check %pyproject_check_import 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2152757-python- sdnotify/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %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 ------- Checking: python3-sdnotify-0.3.2-0.fc38.noarch.rpm python-sdnotify-0.3.2-0.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqtz061te')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python3-sdnotify.noarch: W: no-documentation =============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================== 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 python3-sdnotify.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sdnotify/sdnotify-0.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73977fc746b36cc41184dd43c3fe81323e7b8b06c2bb0826c4f59a20c56bb9f1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73977fc746b36cc41184dd43c3fe81323e7b8b06c2bb0826c4f59a20c56bb9f1 Requires -------- python3-sdnotify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-sdnotify: python-sdnotify python3-sdnotify python3.11-sdnotify python3.11dist(sdnotify) python3dist(sdnotify) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2152757 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, R, fonts, Perl, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #2) > This mostly looks good. Some issues (easily fixable): > > - the release tag (0) does not match the changelog (1). Since the change to > use rpmautospec by default is accepted recently > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default), just use > that: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html > > - this won't work without systemd installed, but the automatic dependency > generator will only generate Python dependencies. You'd want to manually > `Require: systemd` > > - the project does not come with any tests, so you probably want to at least > add some smoke tests - you're using the new Python %pyproject* macros, so > add this (normally after the %install section): > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > #pyproject_check_import > > %check > %pyproject_check_import Thank you! I have made the changes as requested. Spec URL: https://git.shrug.pw/neil/python-sdnotify/src/branch/rawhide/python-sdnotify.spec Srpm URL: https://git.shrug.pw/api/packages/neil/generic/python-sdnotify/0.3.2/python-sdnotify-0.3.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5298803 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2152757-python-sdnotify/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05298803-python-sdnotify/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
LGTM, approved! I have added you to the packager list. I see you've posted to the development list once, but have not seen a self-introduction, so please do that at some point: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/#introduce_yourself Feel free to ask me about packaging questions!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sdnotify
FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca
FEDORA-2023-f491503294 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f491503294
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87
FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca 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-2023-51b9b9feca \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 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-2023-1355099d87 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-f491503294 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-2023-f491503294 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f491503294 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-f491503294 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.