Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-boltons.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-boltons-23.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Boltons is a set of over 230 BSD-licensed, pure-Python utilities in the same spirit as — and yet conspicuously missing from — the standard library, including: * Atomic file saving, bolted on with fileutils * A highly-optimized OrderedMultiDict, in dictutils * Two types of PriorityQueue, in queueutils * Chunked and windowed iteration, in iterutils * Recursive data structure iteration and merging, with iterutils.remap * Exponential backoff functionality, including jitter, through iterutils.backoff * A full-featured TracebackInfo type, for representing stack traces, in tbutils Fedora Account System Username: orion https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=109683140
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6704071 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2252017-python-boltons/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06704071-python-boltons/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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 79 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2252017-python-boltons/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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 68394 bytes in 3 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: 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]: 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: [-]: 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. 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]: 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-boltons-23.1.1-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-boltons-23.1.1-1.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/tmp0ipqkfw7')] 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: 2.5.0 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: 32, packages: 1 python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fileutils', '%description -l en_US fileutils -> fillets') python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dictutils', '%description -l en_US dictutils -> dialectics') python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('queueutils', "%description -l en_US queueutils -> queue's") python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('iterutils', '%description -l en_US iterutils -> illiterates') python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('backoff', '%description -l en_US backoff -> back off, back-off, kickoff') python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('jitter', '%description -l en_US jitter -> hitter, jotter, jitters') python3-boltons.noarch: E: spelling-error ('tbutils', '%description -l en_US tbutils -> utilizes') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 7 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/boltons/boltons-23.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2cb2fa83cf2ebe791be1e284183e8a43a1031355156a968f8e0a333ad2448fc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2cb2fa83cf2ebe791be1e284183e8a43a1031355156a968f8e0a333ad2448fc Requires -------- python3-boltons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-boltons: python-boltons python3-boltons python3.12-boltons python3.12dist(boltons) python3dist(boltons) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2252017 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Ocaml, Java, fonts, Perl, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Why add Recommends: python3-boltons+color to the spec file? b) Any possibility to build the documentation using sphinx to create man pages?
The color thing is left over from the example spec - thanks for catching it. I'm now building the man page. Spec URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-boltons.spec SRPM URL: https://orion.fedorapeople.org/python-boltons-23.1.1-2.fc40.src.rpm * Wed Nov 29 2023 Orion Poplawski <orion> - 23.1.1-2 - Build man page
Created attachment 2001975 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6704071 to 6705253
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6705253 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2252017-python-boltons/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06705253-python-boltons/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.
Approved. If you modify the spec file to have: %build %pyproject_wheel export READTHEDOCS=True make -C docs man you can remove BuildRequires: python3-sphinx_rtd_theme see https://github.com/mahmoud/boltons/blob/master/docs/conf.py#L122-L129
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-boltons
Thank you for that tidbit and the review!