Spec URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/ SRPM URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/ Description: The idea is quite simple. You write a class for every type of content (called here ParsedStatement) you need to parse. Each class should have a from_string constructor. We used extensively the typing module to make the output structure easy to use and less error prone. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108373782 F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108373848 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108373850 This is required to update python-pint to 0.20 or later.
See also bug 2222279 for python-flexcache, which was a very similar package from the same author.
It looks like unbundling from python-pint will actually require a pre-release snapshot of 0.2 (not yet released, https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5). I’ll update this with a new submission shortly.
New Spec URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/python-flexparser.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedoraproject.org/python-flexparser-0.2~20221025git49e5c11-1.fc38.src.rpm The exact commit packaged is chosen to correspond to the version vendored in https://github.com/hgrecco/pint . I’ve asked upstream about making a new release in https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5 . F40: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383192 F39: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383193 F38: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108383196
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6586113 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/srpm-builds/06586113/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.
Ugh; I’ve posted two sets of broken URLs. I bumped the packaged version forward by one to match what is vendored in pint 0.20.1 and later, and fixed the URLs: New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-flexparser.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-flexparser-0.2~20221026git66b1338-1.fc38.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6586261 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06586261-python-flexparser/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.
You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. And maybe time to ping upstream about that release?
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #7) > You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. The note isn’t a TODO for myself, but a note for the benefit of other reviewers and readers, a habit I got into as an early adopter of pyproject-rpm-macros. I suppose that the license file handling is now sufficiently well-known that I can stop adding this comment. It’s probably not worth uploading a new spec and SRPM to remove the comment, but I’m happy to remove it on import. > And maybe time to ping upstream about that release? Good idea. Pinged. https://github.com/hgrecco/flexparser/issues/5#issuecomment-1826479693
Upstream released flexparser 0.2, so I: - Switched from a GitHub archive to the PyPI sdist; this means I can’t package the examples (so there is no longer a -doc subpackage), but that isn’t terribly important. At the same time, it means I don’t have to fiddle with SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION, and the entire package is simplified. - Removed the comment about licenses in %files (but it still applies, in that %{pyproject_files} does correctly handle the license files). New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231127/python-flexparser.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20231127/python-flexparser-0.2-1.fc39.src.rpm This no longer works correctly with https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pint/pull-request/10 due to API compatibilities, but it should work once pint 0.23 is released, and we should be able to make the PR work by temporarily bundling the required flexparser snapshot for pint 0.22 until then.
Created attachment 2001749 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6586261 to 6700404
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6700404 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247275-python-flexparser/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06700404-python-flexparser/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.
(In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #8) > (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #7) > > You should probably check and remove the comment in %files. > > The note isn’t a TODO for myself, but a note for the benefit of other > reviewers and readers, a habit I got into as an early adopter of > pyproject-rpm-macros. I suppose that the license file handling is now > sufficiently well-known that I can stop adding this comment. > > It’s probably not worth uploading a new spec and SRPM to remove the comment, > but I’m happy to remove it on import. > You can now pass -l to %pyproject_save_files. Everything else looks good to me.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flexparser
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #12) > You can now pass -l to %pyproject_save_files. > > > Everything else looks good to me. Thank you for the review! I added the package to Koschei, configured release monitoring[1], and added -l to %pyproject_save_files[2]. [1] https://release-monitoring.org/project/253145/ [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flexparser/c/a556984bbdb38071997c209da4ae3171a1eff3c2?branch=rawhide
FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591
FEDORA-2023-f1e7bd9591 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768
FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c
FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 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-2023-6f3e9c8768 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c 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-2023-42ba2c9f2c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-6f3e9c8768 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-42ba2c9f2c has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 (python-flexparser-0.3.1-5.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b836c5c1e8 (python-flexparser-0.3.1-5.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.