Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-hsluv.spec SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-hsluv-5.0.4-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: A Python implementation of HSLuv (revision 4). Fedora Account System Username: jamatos This package is the remaining unmet dependency in the upgrade of nikola (static site generator)
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6988868 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262965-python-hsluv/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06988868-python-hsluv/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.
> Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hsluv/hsluv-%{version}.tar.gz You should use %{pypi_source hsluv} instead of manually specifying the URL. > %pyproject_buildrequires -t You can remove the -t flag. This project does not use tox.
(In reply to Maxwell G from comment #2) > > Source0: https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hsluv/hsluv-%{version}.tar.gz > > You should use %{pypi_source hsluv} instead of manually specifying the URL. Done. > > %pyproject_buildrequires -t > > You can remove the -t flag. This project does not use tox. Done. New version below: Spec URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-hsluv.spec SRPM URL: https://jamatos.fedorapeople.org/python-hsluv-5.0.4-2.fc39.src.rpm
Created attachment 2016369 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6988868 to 7007688
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7007688 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2262965-python-hsluv/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07007688-python-hsluv/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.
I'm taking this since I need it for another package.
This looks good. I have a couple of minor, pedantic if you will, points: 1. The license file is duplicated /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/hsluv-5.0.4.dist-info/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/licenses/python3-hsluv/LICENSE.txt Upstream already includes the license file, which ends up in the `dist-info` dir. So, you can drop `%license LICENSE.txt` from `%files`. You may want to add `-l` to `%pyproject_save_files` (recommended), which will cause the build to fail, should upstream ever stop including the license file. 2. Not many tests are run It's up to upstream to provide tests, of course. However, seeing only two are run at the moment, please consider adding `%pyproject_check_import` to `%check` as an additional smoke test. 3. Summary does not start with a capital letter Please consider starting the summary with a capital latter. 4. Summary and description are the same According to PyPI the summary is "Human-friendly HSL". In `setup.py` this is specified as `description`, unfortunately. What we call description in the spec file, upstream specifies as `long_description`. Consider changing it. None of the above is breaking, though. Therefore, the package is APPROVED. If you'd like to implement any of the recommendations, you can do so upon import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 9796 bytes in 1 files. [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. [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. 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-hsluv-5.0.4-2.fc38.noarch.rpm python-hsluv-5.0.4-2.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/tmpcr4lcp_j')] checks: 31, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-hsluv". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hsluv/hsluv-5.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2281f946427a882010042844a38c7bbe9e0d0aaf9d46babe46366ed6f169b72e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2281f946427a882010042844a38c7bbe9e0d0aaf9d46babe46366ed6f169b72e Requires -------- python3-hsluv (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-hsluv: python-hsluv python3-hsluv python3.11-hsluv python3.11dist(hsluv) python3dist(hsluv) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-hsluv --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, C/C++, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Ping? José, are you planning on importing this to Fedora?
This review appears to be stalled. It's been four weeks since I approved it. I'll wait another week as per stalled review policy [1] before closing this as a dead review [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#submitter_not_responding
Apologies for taking so long to reply. I have been missing in action between assessments and conferences. :-( I will import this now.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hsluv
No worries. It would have made it into Fedora one way or another. ;) This way is the quickest, though. Thanks for taking care of it.
(In reply to Sandro from comment #12) > No worries. It would have made it into Fedora one way or another. ;) > This way is the quickest, though. Thanks for taking care of it. Thank you. Applied most of your suggestions with the single exception of the description. In the setup config the long description is simply to load the README so it seems difficult to do better. Feel free to change in the repo if you want to.
I usually go by what is on PyPI. In this case it's not much: A Python implementation of HSLuv (revision 4). For summary, I'd use "Human-friendly HSL". But it doesn't matter much either. Do as you see fit.
I looked into PyPI before writing the description and I had the same issues that you identified. FWIW this package is already in rawhide and in updates for Fedora 39 and 40.
I think this is done. Package is available in all branches: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f67ea1b31b https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-022d95eab9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-1970e4e17a