Bug 2328464 - Review Request: python-standard-mailcap - restore removed mailcap dead battery
Summary: Review Request: python-standard-mailcap - restore removed mailcap dead battery
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Benson Muite
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/youknowone/python-...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-11-23 07:47 UTC by Dick Marinus
Modified: 2025-04-21 16:46 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-12 08:00:55 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
benson_muite: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-11-23 07:51:25 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8305772
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2328464-python-standard-mailcap/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08305772-python-standard-mailcap/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.

Comment 3 Benson Muite 2024-11-23 13:41:20 UTC
Can the unit tests be run?

https://github.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/blob/main/.github/workflows/tests.yaml

Comment 4 Dick Marinus 2024-11-23 13:58:28 UTC
Thanks for your help! I will have a look.

Comment 5 Benson Muite 2024-11-23 18:15:51 UTC
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", "*No copyright* Python Software
     Foundation License 2.0". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-standard-mailcap/2328464-python-
     standard-mailcap/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 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 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 0 bytes in 0 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:
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %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-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm
          python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.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/tmpx4lokq03')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

python-standard-mailcap.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery".
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery".
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-standard-mailcap.src: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594.
python-standard-mailcap.src: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries.
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594.
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries.
========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 3.3 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-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-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery".
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594.
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries.
 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/standard_mailcap/standard_mailcap-3.13.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 19ed7955dbeaccb35e8bb05b2b5443ce55c1f932a8cbe7a5c13d42f9db4f499a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19ed7955dbeaccb35e8bb05b2b5443ce55c1f932a8cbe7a5c13d42f9db4f499a


Requires
--------
python3-standard-mailcap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)



Provides
--------
python3-standard-mailcap:
    python-standard-mailcap
    python3-standard-mailcap
    python3.13-standard-mailcap
    python3.13dist(standard-mailcap)
    python3dist(standard-mailcap)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2328464
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comments:
a) Please shorten the lines in the description to 80 characters or less, and remove
the full stop at the end of the summary line.
b) Koji build with tests:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126170052
Perhaps suggest to upsream not to use Python internal testing functions and use only
functions form unittest:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/test.html#module-test
Sections that needed modification in spec file below:

Source0:        %{pypi_source standard_mailcap}
# Test file not distributed on pypi
Source1:        https://raw.githubusercontent.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/2de4e1d4a7b247cd5b299b945c972f337bcb6eb8/mailcap/tests/mailcap.txt

BuildArch:      noarch
BuildRequires:  python3-devel
# tests
BuildRequires:  python3-test
:
:
sed -i -e "s/setuptools>=75.0/setuptools>=69.0/" pyproject.toml
cp %{SOURCE1} tests/
touch tests/__init__.py
:
:
%pyproject_check_import
%{py3_test_envvars} %{python3} -m unittest



c) Please add
%doc README.rst
to end of file listing
d) Approved, though please make at least changes (a) and (c) before import.
d) Review of:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328488
would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.

Comment 6 Michael J Gruber 2025-02-17 14:31:32 UTC
Has the original requester lost interest in packaging, or is this moving forward?

alot FTBFS in rawhide and F42 now, and alot's upstream does not seem to be moving to a proper mailcap replacement soon (as there is none - the suggested mimetypes module is none). Getting the dead battery module live would help carry alot over to the to be released F42.

The alternative is dropping alot and suggesting to users to install via pip (which is not the worst suggestion anyways).

Comment 7 Dick Marinus 2025-02-17 18:41:14 UTC
Not so much progress; I'm trying to get the tests into the distribution. A pull request for this has been approved and I've asked for a release (which isn't happening).

See: https://github.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/issues/49

Now I'm a bit worried about the maintenance of the deadlib library from youknowone.

I'm not sure if these tests are a requirement for packaging it in Fedora.

Anyway, please let me know what's still missing for adding this to Fedora, I'm willing to take ownership of maintenance of this package.

Comment 8 Dick Marinus 2025-03-29 06:48:10 UTC
Okay, I don't expect much to happen from youknowone very soon so I switched to using the sources from github to get the test suite.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_64/08831973-python-standard-mailcap/python-standard-mailcap.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_64/08831973-python-standard-mailcap/python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc41.src.rpm

I hope you can find some time to review.

Comment 10 Dick Marinus 2025-04-11 18:55:34 UTC
Could someone please tell me if anything needs to be done to get this into Fedora?

alot has been broken for a long time now.

Comment 11 Benson Muite 2025-04-11 19:15:34 UTC
Had positively reviewed it. You should be able to request a repository and import it as you are in the packager group.

Comment 12 Benson Muite 2025-04-11 19:16:34 UTC
Reset flag just in case.

Comment 13 Benson Muite 2025-04-11 19:20:22 UTC
Do not use:
python3 -m unittest
use
%{py3_test_envvars} %{python3} -m unittest
as this will set the correct environment variables.

Comment 15 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-04-12 07:35:05 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-standard-mailcap

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2025-04-12 07:57:57 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2025-04-12 08:00:55 UTC
FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2025-04-12 08:44:53 UTC
FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2025-04-12 08:44:53 UTC
FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2025-04-13 02:41:11 UTC
FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2025-04-13 03:18:02 UTC
FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 22 Tomas Tomecek 2025-04-14 13:16:33 UTC
Thank you for carrying this review towards success, Dick! I just granted you commit access for alot, you are welcome to push changes in there.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2025-04-21 01:53:20 UTC
FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 24 Fedora Update System 2025-04-21 16:46:52 UTC
FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.