spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-1/python-trio-websocket.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-1/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-1.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105824163 Description: A python library implementing both server and client aspects of the the WebSocket protocol, striving for safety, correctness, and ergonomics. FAS username: suve
This is a new dependency required for updating python-selenium.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6378434 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2237711-python-trio-websocket/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06378434-python-trio-websocket/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.
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", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-trio- websocket/2237711-python-trio-websocket/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. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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 11640 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [!]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-trio-websocket-0.10.3-1.fc38.noarch.rpm python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-1.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/tmpx86sv9rd')] checks: 31, packages: 2 python-trio-websocket.spec:57: W: python-setup-test %{python3} setup.py test 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 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 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/t/trio-websocket/trio-websocket-0.10.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1a748604ad906a7dcab9a43c6eb5681e37de4793ba0847ef0bc9486933ed027b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1a748604ad906a7dcab9a43c6eb5681e37de4793ba0847ef0bc9486933ed027b Requires -------- python3-trio-websocket (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(trio) python3.11dist(wsproto) Provides -------- python3-trio-websocket: python-trio-websocket python3-trio-websocket python3.11-trio-websocket python3.11dist(trio-websocket) python3dist(trio-websocket) Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-trio-websocket/2237711-python-trio-websocket/srpm/python-trio-websocket.spec 2023-09-06 18:47:33.510997323 +0300 +++ /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-trio-websocket/2237711-python-trio-websocket/srpm-unpacked/python-trio-websocket.spec 2023-09-06 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ %global pypi_name trio-websocket %global pypi_name_underscore %(echo "%{pypi_name}" | tr '-' '_') - Name: python-%{pypi_name} + Summary: WebSocket implementation focused on safety and correctness License: MIT Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237711 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Haskell, fonts, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Ruby, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) It seems to build, however some of the dependencies required for tests such as trustme are missing. As a result the tests do not run. b) The spec file could also be updated to more closely match the new packaging guidelines see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/python-trio-websocket/fedora-38-x86_64/06380108-python-trio-websocket/python-trio-websocket.spec
Tests can be run see https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106045062
Would be great to also build the documentation.
> b) The spec file could also be updated to more closely match the new packaging guidelines see: Oh, interesting. All this time I was convinced that the new macros, since they're named %pyproject_xxx, work only with packages that use pyproject.toml. I guess that's something that could be added as a "Note" box to the guidelines somewhere. > Would be great to also build the documentation. Added. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-2/python-trio-websocket.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-2/python-trio-websocket-0.10.3-2.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106138036
Updated to v0.10.4. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1/python-trio-websocket.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1/python-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1.fc38.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106480634
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: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/trio- websocket-0.10.4' returned non-zero exit status 2. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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: [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [-]: 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-trio-websocket [ ]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-trio-websocket-doc-0.10.4-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpl42kdvcj')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-trio-websocket.noarch: W: no-documentation python-trio-websocket-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-trio-websocket-doc/html/.buildinfo 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 2 python3-trio-websocket.noarch: W: no-documentation python-trio-websocket-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python-trio-websocket-doc/html/.buildinfo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/python-trio/trio-websocket/archive/0.10.4/trio-websocket-0.10.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21f5609574c96a647577516af12a139b3f2abc5094b9d6aa4d4d2190c211c0fe CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21f5609574c96a647577516af12a139b3f2abc5094b9d6aa4d4d2190c211c0fe Requires -------- python3-trio-websocket (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(trio) python3.12dist(wsproto) python-trio-websocket-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-trio-websocket: python-trio-websocket python3-trio-websocket python3.12-trio-websocket python3.12dist(trio-websocket) python3dist(trio-websocket) python-trio-websocket-doc: python-trio-websocket-doc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2237711 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Perl, Java, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, fonts, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Can you indicate documentation package has bundled jquery, b) For the main package license is correctly marked, so you can remove %license LICENSE from it, but this still needed for doc package $ rpm -qL python3-trio-websocket-0.10.4-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/trio_websocket-0.10.4.dist-info/LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/python3-trio-websocket/LICENSE $ rpm -qL python-trio-websocket-doc-0.10.4-1.fc40.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/python-trio-websocket-doc/LICENSE
> a) Can you indicate documentation package has bundled jquery Looking at other python*-doc packages, I see "bundled(jquery)" and "bundled(js-jquery)". Which of these is preferred? > b) For the main package license is correctly marked, so you can remove %license LICENSE from it, Should I remove it entirely or maybe make a symlink from /usr/share/licences/... to the other file?
>> a) Can you indicate documentation package has bundled jquery > Looking at other python*-doc packages, I see "bundled(jquery)" and "bundled(js-jquery)". > Which of these is preferred? bundled(js-jquery) is preferred as that is the name of the rpm please also add bundles(nodejs-underscores) >> b) For the main package license is correctly marked, so you can remove %license LICENSE from it, > Should I remove it entirely or maybe make a symlink from /usr/share/licences/... to the other file? You can remove it entirely see https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106619189
Updated to v0.11.1. spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.11.1-1/python-trio-websocket.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/python-trio-websocket-0.11.1-1/python-trio-websocket-0.11.1-1.fc39.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=106995957
There is a hidden directory in the doc package: usr/share/doc/python-trio-websocket-doc/html/.buildinfo Please remove it before importing. Approved.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-trio-websocket
FEDORA-2023-347c516d58 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-347c516d58
FEDORA-2023-347c516d58 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-347c516d58 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-347c516d58 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-347c516d58 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.