Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-aws-xray-sdk.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-aws-xray-sdk-2.12.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: The AWS X-Ray SDK for Python (the SDK) enables Python developers to record and emit information from within their applications to the AWS X-Ray service. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100349461 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100349473 F37: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=100350609
Sorry, only meant to do the CC, not the NEEDINFO.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5846388 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189323-python-aws-xray-sdk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05846388-python-aws-xray-sdk/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 If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Converted %bcond_with/%bcond_without build conditionals to %bcond. Updated Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230804/python-aws-xray-sdk.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230804/python-aws-xray-sdk-2.12.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Created attachment 1981636 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 5846388 to 6241055
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6241055 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189323-python-aws-xray-sdk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06241055-python-aws-xray-sdk/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
It turns out that this needs python-testing.postgresql and python-testing.common.database; the former FTBFS in Rawhide, and both were orphaned as unused and unmaintained upstream. I’ll see if I can fix them up and bring them back to support this package’s tests.
I'll keep an eye out on this one, Ben. Just poke me when you're fully done and I'll do a review!
Thanks for offering to do the review! I’ve fixed python-testing.postgresql, but Python 3.12 happened since I originally posted this for review, and the way the test dependencies are generated from tox environments seems to require me to propose a patch to add Python 3.12 versions of those environments. I’m trying to take my time and do that “right,” in a way that is useful for upstream. I should have an updated submission ready sometime between today and the end of the week.
Sounds good. Just slap a needinfo on this thing when you're all set.
Patched for recent tox and for Python 3.12: Updated Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230808/python-aws-xray-sdk.spec Updated SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20230808/python-aws-xray-sdk-2.12.0-1.fc38.src.rpm Should be ready now!
I just noticed that this line in %prep is unused because I decided to be fancy instead: > cp -p sample-apps/LICENSE LICENSE.sample-apps I won’t bother re-uploading, but I’ll plan to remove it upon import.
Created attachment 1982374 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6241055 to 6257468
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6257468 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2189323-python-aws-xray-sdk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06257468-python-aws-xray-sdk/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 If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The only question here is around ownership of /usr/share/doc/python-aws-xray-sdk. Otherwise this package looks good to go. 👍 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [-]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/python-aws-xray-sdk [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/python-aws- xray-sdk [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. [-]: 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 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 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: [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-aws-xray-sdk [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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).
Thanks for the review! ---- I’m not used to having to add an explicit > %dir %{_pkgdocdir} but I guess this is a consequence of the way I am using absolute paths and explicit file lists for documentation. I will add the above line when I import the package. Thanks for catching that.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aws-xray-sdk
https://release-monitoring.org/project/52456/
FEDORA-2023-4ba499baeb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4ba499baeb
FEDORA-2023-4ba499baeb has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4
FEDORA-2023-ece5bbd83b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ece5bbd83b
FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-ece5bbd83b 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-ece5bbd83b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ece5bbd83b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-ece5bbd83b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-34efac8ec4 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.