Bug 2159469 - Review Request: python-xrst - Extract Sphinx RST Files
Summary: Review Request: python-xrst - Extract Sphinx RST Files
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Vasiliy Glazov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-01-09 17:38 UTC by Brad Bell
Modified: 2024-01-28 08:15 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-01-28 08:15:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
vascom2: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Brad Bell 2023-01-09 17:38:53 UTC
Fedora Account System Username: bradbell

Spec URL: https://bradbell.fedorapeople.org/python-xrst.spec
SRPM URL: https://bradbell.fedorapeople.org/python-xrst-2023.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm
Purpose URL: https://xrst.readthedocs.io/en/latest/purpose.html

Description: 
This is a sphinx wrapper that extracts RST file from source code
and then runs sphinx to obtain html, tex, or pdf output files.
It includes automatic processing and commands that make sphinx easier to use.

Purpose:

Comment 1 Brad Bell 2023-01-10 09:32:42 UTC
The cppad package uses xrst to build it's documentation, it xrst was a package in fedora, cppad would not have to upload the html build by xrst as source files; see
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/cppad/cppad-devel/

Correction and more details about the links above:

The spec file, source tarball, and soruce rpm can be found at the link
https://bradbell.fedorapeople.org

The project git repository can be found at
https://github.com/bradbell/xrst

This is a link to the documentation page that describes the purpose of xrst
https://xrst.readthedocs.io/en/latest/purpose.html

Comment 2 Brad Bell 2023-01-13 19:39:57 UTC
I tested the rpm with mock using the command
mock -r  /etc/mock/fedora-36-x86_64.cfg --rebuild  python-xrst-2023.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm
 
It worked fine after I changed python to python3 in the xrst.spec line:
python -m xrst --rst_only --group_list default user

Comment 3 Vasiliy Glazov 2023-01-19 10:44:53 UTC
Spec URL must contain direct URL to spec file.
SRPM URL must contain URL to src.rpm file.

Comment 4 Brad Bell 2023-01-19 18:15:22 UTC
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #3)
> Spec URL must contain direct URL to spec file.
> SRPM URL must contain URL to src.rpm file.

I updated those links.

Comment 5 Brad Bell 2023-01-20 05:51:05 UTC
(In reply to Brad Bell from comment #2)
> I tested the rpm with mock using the command
> mock -r  /etc/mock/fedora-36-x86_64.cfg --rebuild 
> python-xrst-2023.1.9-1.fc36.src.rpm
>  
> It worked fine after I changed python to python3 in the xrst.spec line:
> python -m xrst --rst_only --group_list default user

I fixed this when I fixed the links.

Comment 6 Vasiliy Glazov 2023-01-20 06:07:18 UTC
1. Need add to %files section
%license gpl-3.0.txt

2. Add changelog.

Comment 7 Brad Bell 2023-01-20 12:42:23 UTC
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #6)
> 1. Need add to %files section
> %license gpl-3.0.txt
> 
> 2. Add changelog.

I uploaded a new version of the spec and rpm source with these changes.

Comment 8 Vasiliy Glazov 2023-01-20 13:11:24 UTC
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: xrst.spec should be python-xrst.spec
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

Comment 9 Brad Bell 2023-01-20 13:43:11 UTC
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #8)
> - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>   %{name}.spec.
>   Note: xrst.spec should be python-xrst.spec
>   See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming

I uploaded the new spec and rpm source with this change (and made the corresponding change to the link for 'Spec URL' above.

Comment 10 Vasiliy Glazov 2023-01-20 14:04:07 UTC
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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
     License, Version 3", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General
     Public License v3.0 or later". 80 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/vascom/2159469-python-
     xrst/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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:
[-]: 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:
[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).
[x]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-xrst-2023.1.9-1.fc38.noarch.rpm
          python-xrst-2023.1.9-1.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/tmpyo9_me0h')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

======================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 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

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/bradbell/xrst/archive/2023.1.9/xrst-2023.1.9.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d6004887ad6b839333522cca783eeae56a2085ddb8f6822e973cd4a078e1b6a0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d6004887ad6b839333522cca783eeae56a2085ddb8f6822e973cd4a078e1b6a0


Requires
--------
python3-xrst (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-xrst:
    python-xrst
    python3-xrst
    python3.11-xrst
    python3.11dist(xrst)
    python3dist(xrst)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2159469
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell, Ocaml, R, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 11 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2023-01-20 14:53:13 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-xrst

Comment 12 Package Review 2024-01-28 08:15:55 UTC
Package is now in repositories, closing review.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.