Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile-1.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Backport of CPython tarfile module. This a dependency needed by `importlib-resources` -> `jaraco.context` -> `backports.tarfile` for updating `importlib-resources` to EPEL9, fixing an issue with `MultiplexedPath`. I am asking upstream [1] what are the plans for this package if it's meant to be kept in sync with python implementaiton, or if it's a specific backport needed. If the former, this might be needed to be packaged for `rawhide` as well, otherwise this should be an EPEL9-only package [1]: https://github.com/jaraco/backports.tarfile/issues/9
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8027602 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2312851-python-backports-tarfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08027602-python-backports-tarfile/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.
Review notes: [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. -> it is actually possible to make the test work by patching it as follows: sed -i "s/\\('-m', 'backports.tarfile',\\)/\\1 __cleanenv=False,/g" tests/test_tarfile.py The rest looks good to me. Will paste the full review checklist once the above is addressed.
Thanks for picking this up Ondrej. The issue I had was more that there is a circular dependency: `backports.tarfile` -> `jaraco.test` -> `jaraco.context` -> `backports.tarfile` Here is where `jaraco.test` is used: https://github.com/jaraco/backports.tarfile/blob/v1.2.0/tests/compat/py39.py#L9. Do you have some ideas on how to overcome it?
Ah, you mean on EPEL9... I only tried it on Rawhide. I don't think it's worth trying to work around the dependency chain there, so I guess turning the tests off [by default] only on EPEL9 for now would be best. Then they could be enabled later when/if all the deps are bootstrapped in EPEL9. If the package ends up being EPEL9-only, then the conditionals can probably be simplified away, but that's not clear yet. Anyway, it would be nice to run %pyproject_check_import in the !%{with check} case so that at least trivial errors are caught (this is recommended in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_running_tests).
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile-1.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Oh yeah I forgot to include the `%pyproject_check_import`, sorry about that. I've updated the specfile for it
Created attachment 2047827 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8027602 to 8043177
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8043177 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2312851-python-backports-tarfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08043177-python-backports-tarfile/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.
Spec URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile.spec SRPM URL: https://lecris.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-backports-tarfile/python-backports-tarfile-1.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Had a typo when changing `check` -> `test`. Also made the tests pass for rawhide according to your suggestion, thanks for that solution.
Created attachment 2047830 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8043177 to 8043311
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8043311 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2312851-python-backports-tarfile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08043311-python-backports-tarfile/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 ============== Two more minor things, but those can be resolved during import: - the "BuildRequires: python3-test" is either unnecessary or covered by %generate_buildrequires and can be dropped - the sed command could use a comment (e.g. "# Preserve environment when calling Python from tests so that the tests can pass during RPM build") Package approved. 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. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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", "*No copyright* MIT License", "MIT License". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-backports- tarfile/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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 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 861 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: [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). [x]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-backports-tarfile-1.2.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-backports-tarfile-1.2.0-1.fc42.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/tmpgrf7_lkx')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-backports-tarfile". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/backports_tarfile/backports_tarfile-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d75e02c268746e1b8144c278978b6e98e85de6ad16f8e4b0844a154557eca991 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d75e02c268746e1b8144c278978b6e98e85de6ad16f8e4b0844a154557eca991 Requires -------- python3-backports-tarfile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) Provides -------- python3-backports-tarfile: python-backports-tarfile python3-backports-tarfile python3.13-backports-tarfile python3.13dist(backports-tarfile) python3dist(backports-tarfile) 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-backports-tarfile --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, fonts, C/C++, PHP, R, Ocaml, Java, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
> - the "BuildRequires: python3-test" is either unnecessary or covered by %generate_buildrequires and can be dropped This part is about supporting `test.support` which is part of python stdlib, so it cannot be picked up by generate_buildrequires since it doesn't have a `python3dist()`. Ah, but indeed it is covered by `jaraco.test`, I was previously trying out to test without `jaraco.test`, must have been a remnant from then. I'll remove it at import. > - the sed command could use a comment (e.g. "# Preserve environment when calling Python from tests so that the tests can pass during RPM build") Fair point, I'll add comments during the import ``` # tests are calling `python3 -m ...` which would need to propagate PYTHONPATH pointing to the installed package ``` Thanks for the review.
Thank you for the review, Ondrej
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-backports-tarfile
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/67510
For the record, upstream replied on their plans for this package [1]. Basically unless some new package will request a feature to be backported from 3.13+, that package will remain dormant as-is. I would like to retire the package from rawhide and keep it dormant until there is a new release in upstream indicating that there are new packages that need this backport. [1]: https://github.com/jaraco/backports.tarfile/issues/9
Oh I forgot to mark this update for https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-34fb660455 and it didn't seem to have been picked up automagically.