Spec URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-lazy_load.spec SRPM URL: https://peter.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A minimalistic interface that allows lazy evaluation of expressions and function calls. Fedora Account System Username: peter Koji scratch build for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121402571
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7819964 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2302539-python-lazy_load/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07819964-python-lazy_load/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.
Hi there, please keep in mind that this is not an "official" review as I am not yet a packager. Overall this spec file looks very good to me, below is the output from the `fedora-review` tool with a note in the "Issues" section. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The license file should be explicitly included in %files with: `%license LICENSE` ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python- lazy_load/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/lib, /usr/share/doc [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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 8660 bytes in 1 files. [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. [ ]: 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: [!]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc40.noarch.rpm python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc40.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/tmplphw3ots')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-lazy_load.src: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', 'Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') python-lazy_load.src: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', '%description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') python3-lazy_load.noarch: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', 'Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') python3-lazy_load.noarch: E: spelling-error ('minimalistic', '%description -l en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-lazy_load". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/l/lazy_load/lazy_load-0.8.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5e9276e26b382bec872750c84d92247aa7846575922436e29d20c29bd873dad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5e9276e26b382bec872750c84d92247aa7846575922436e29d20c29bd873dad Requires -------- python3-lazy_load (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.12dist(lazy-object-proxy) Provides -------- python3-lazy_load: python-lazy_load python3-lazy_load python3.12-lazy_load python3.12dist(lazy-load) python3dist(lazy-load) 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-lazy_load --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-40-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: R, Java, fonts, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
(In reply to Kyle Gospodnetich from comment #2) > Hi there, please keep in mind that this is not an "official" review as I am > not yet a packager. > > Overall this spec file looks very good to me, below is the output from the > `fedora-review` tool with a note in the "Issues" section. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > Issues: > ======= > - The license file should be explicitly included in %files with: > `%license LICENSE` Not that simple. It *should* but we have Python-related scripts which indentify licensing terms based on pyproject.toml files (and a few more corresponding ones). Try rpm -qpL ./packagename-ver.si.on.ARCHITECTURE.rpm - it is correctly detected and listed (the path is different tough)
I will take this review. If GAP packages don't scare you, I would appreciate a review of bug 2277899. GAP packaging guidelines are here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/GAP/.
Kyle did a good review. I will just add that fedora-review now adds a new issue: - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ The issue appears to be that the python3-pytest7 package Provides python3-pytest. Can you change the BuildRequires to, say: BuildRequires: python-pytest >= 8 ?
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #5) > Kyle did a good review. I will just add that fedora-review now adds a new > issue: > > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: python3-pytest7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ > > The issue appears to be that the python3-pytest7 package Provides > python3-pytest. Can you change the BuildRequires to, say: > > BuildRequires: python-pytest >= 8 > > ? Honestly I'd stick with a simple python3-pytest. I double-checked - it still picks a proper package on all supported branches, see a root log for Rawhide: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121622117 * https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2117/121622117/root.log If I use "python-pytest >= 8" it will limit the package to Fedora 41+, but I plan to add f40 and f39 branches and want to avoid extra %if..%else..%endif bits.
Got it. In that case, this package is APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-lazy_load
FEDORA-2024-32ce982a65 (python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-32ce982a65
FEDORA-2024-bd0f4089cd (python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bd0f4089cd
FEDORA-2024-bd0f4089cd 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-bd0f4089cd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-bd0f4089cd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-32ce982a65 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-2024-32ce982a65 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-32ce982a65 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2024-bd0f4089cd (python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2024-32ce982a65 (python-lazy_load-0.8.3-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.