Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-succulent.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-succulent-0.2.1-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Sending sensor measurements, data, or GPS positions from embedded devices, microcontrollers, and smartwatches to the central server is sometimes complicated and tricky. Setting up the primary data collection scripts can be time-consuming (selecting a protocol, framework, API, testing it, etc.). Usually, scripts are written for a specific task; thus, they are not easily adaptive to other tasks. succulent is a pure Python framework that simplifies the configuration, management, collection, and preprocessing of data collected via POST requests. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-mock is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ => From the package info (https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/python-mock/python3-mock/): Deprecated, use unittest.mock from the standard library instead. This is a deprecated package. The mock module is now part of the Python standard library, available as unittest.mock in Python 3.3 onwards. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecatePythonMock - python3-succulent.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/python3-succulent/README.md => Should/could be reported upstream. Downstream you could run dos2unix on README.md in %prep (I just realized either way, up- or downstream, it's you, who has to fix it.) - optional step but let's ensure that there is no problems with python, pandas and Flask versions => I see what you are doing, but I'd advice against it unless there's a specific issue with a certain dependency. Setting them all to '*' you may run into issues when Fedora's shipped version is either far ahead or far behind. You'd rather want to catch that as an unsatisfied dependency during build, then having to figure out weird bugs, because the version used is not compatible. - %{py3_dist toml-adapt}, %{py3_dist pytest}, %{py3_dist mock} => I believe that notation is deprecated. You may still use it, but I'd recommend using 'python3-<module>' instead. It's easier to read, if nothing else. - %pyproject_buildrequires -r => From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_macros -r: Include run-time requirements (this flag is not needed and exists for backward-compatibility reasons only, run-time requirements are included by default). ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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 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. [-]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: 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. [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]: 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).
Revision: SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-succulent.spec SRPM: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-succulent-0.2.2-1.fc37.src.rpm
Thanks again, Sandro, for your review. I have already provided a revision. Since I am the upstream, we released a new version where mock is absent. Usually, I use toml-adapt only with the packages I am upstream and thus confident to use it. Therefore, I would like to have it in the spec.
(In reply to Iztok Fister Jr. from comment #3) > Usually, I use toml-adapt only with the packages I am upstream and thus > confident to use it. Therefore, I would like to have it in the spec. Fine. I still think it shouldn't be necessary. But it's up to you. > - %pyproject_buildrequires -r That's still in there. But it's not a blocker, either. => APPROVED
Thanks, Sandro!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-succulent
FEDORA-2023-2812fefd40 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2812fefd40
FEDORA-2023-5fe0beb8f6 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-2023-5fe0beb8f6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5fe0beb8f6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2812fefd40 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-2023-2812fefd40 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2812fefd40 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-2812fefd40 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-5fe0beb8f6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.