Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-webdav4.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: Webdav API with an (optional) fsspec implementation. Fedora Account System Username: music This is a dependency for snakemake-storage-plugin-webdav, and will be a neuro-sig package. See: https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issue/569 Note that this submission contains everything needed to package the “dav” command-line executable, but this is disabled until incompatibilities with current fsspec versions can be addressed upstream; see https://github.com/skshetry/webdav4/issues/174. These incompatibilities appear to affect only the CLI, not the library, and the library is still useful by itself.
CC’ing Felix Schwarz as requested in https://github.com/skshetry/webdav4/issues/174#issuecomment-2212483024.
https://release-monitoring.org/project/154062/
I'll try to review the package later this evening.
Everything looks fine to me. Two thoughts related to the cli package (which is disabled for now): - /usr/bin/dav seems to be a pretty generic name to me - Assuming we provide the cli at some point. Is python3-webdav4 still the right package name? 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in .../2296300-python-webdav4/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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2268 bytes in 1 files. [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. [x]: 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: [-]: 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). [x]: 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-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc41.noarch.rpm python-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc41.src.rpm ======================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4_otzvi4')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-webdav4.src: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', 'Summary(en_US) fsspec -> spec') python-webdav4.src: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', '%description -l en_US fsspec -> spec') python3-webdav4.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', 'Summary(en_US) fsspec -> spec') python3-webdav4.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', '%description -l en_US fsspec -> spec') python-webdav4.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary python3-webdav4.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary ================================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.8 s ================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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-webdav4.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', 'Summary(en_US) fsspec -> spec') python3-webdav4.noarch: E: spelling-error ('fsspec', '%description -l en_US fsspec -> spec') python3-webdav4.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings, 6 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/w/webdav4/webdav4-0.9.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fc7748df33a375de13ddb5f4594f5799f9f3dc13c005b7b9c45c120aad745694 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fc7748df33a375de13ddb5f4594f5799f9f3dc13c005b7b9c45c120aad745694 Requires -------- python3-webdav4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.13dist(httpx) < 1~~ with python3.13dist(httpx) >= 0.20) python(abi) python3.13dist(python-dateutil) Provides -------- python3-webdav4: python-webdav4 python3-webdav4 python3.13-webdav4 python3.13dist(webdav4) python3dist(webdav4) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2296300 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, R, Java, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you for the review! (In reply to Felix Schwarz from comment #4) > Everything looks fine to me. > > Two thoughts related to the cli package (which is disabled for now): > - /usr/bin/dav seems to be a pretty generic name to me I agree. On the other hand, it’s the name that users and scripts that depend on the CLI will expect, and the only other project I could find in a quick search that seems to have a claim on the name is https://github.com/atsb/dav-text – and it seems to be relatively inactive. So I think the generic name could be OK for Fedora, but at the same time, it would be nice if it were more unique, so I filed https://github.com/skshetry/webdav4/issues/179 upstream. > - Assuming we provide the cli at some point. Is python3-webdav4 still the > right package name? Yes, since both are built from the same source they should be a single source package, and then per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_naming it’s just a judgement call as to whether it “primarily” provides an application (in which case webdav4 would be the right name) or a library (in which case python-webdav4 would be the right name). I think the application and library are perhaps nearly equal here, but for now we are packaging this to get the library, and renaming once the CLI was available would only make sense if the CLI application were *much* more important, and the library mostly just existed to support the application. Now, if you are asking about whether the CLI should be shipped in a separate binary package? I’m inclined to say no since packages that ship a command-line tool as part of a python3-whatever library package like this are extremely common in Fedora. It can make sense to ship a CLI separately if there are a lot of support files for it that we can avoid installing when only the library dependency is needed.
Would you like to be a co-maintainer?
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webdav4
FEDORA-2024-547b183f68 (python-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-547b183f68
FEDORA-2024-547b183f68 (python-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-e63fe0ff09 (python-webdav4-0.9.8-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e63fe0ff09
FEDORA-2024-e63fe0ff09 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-e63fe0ff09 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e63fe0ff09 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
> Would you like to be a co-maintainer? Yeah, why not. Might come in handy at a later time.
FEDORA-2024-c606685c6a has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-c606685c6a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c606685c6a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-c606685c6a (python-webdav4-0.10.0-2.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.