spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-autodocsumm.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-autodocsumm-0.2.14-1.fc41.src.rpm description: Welcome! This sphinx extension provides some useful extensions to the Sphinxs autodoc extension. Those are - It creates a Table of Contents in the style of the autosummary extension with methods, classes, functions and attributes - As you can include the __init__ method documentation for via the autoclass_content configuration value, we provide the autodata_content configuration value to include the documentation from the __call__ method - You can exclude the string representation of specific objects. E.g. if you have a large dictionary using the not_document_data configuration value. fas: fed500 Reproducible: Always
1. You can avoid bootstrapping the package by moving/adding this in the %install section to use the just installed package to generate the documentation (and then remove the BuildRequires on python3-autodocsumm as well as all the bconds). pushd docs export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} sphinx-build -b texinfo . texinfo pushd texinfo makeinfo --docbook autodocsumm.texi install -pDm0644 autodocsumm.xml \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/autodocsumm/autodocsumm.xml popd popd Out of curiosity: how can you consume the autodocsumm.xml file? Is there a CLI or GUI tool to display it nicely? 2. Delete the leftover comment: "# Fill in the actual package description to submit package to Fedora" 3. Consider adding doc file %doc README.rst
(In reply to Karolina Surma from comment #1) > 1. You can avoid bootstrapping the package by moving/adding this in the > %install section to use the just installed package to generate the > documentation (and then remove the BuildRequires on python3-autodocsumm as > well as all the bconds). > > pushd docs > export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} > sphinx-build -b texinfo . texinfo > pushd texinfo > makeinfo --docbook autodocsumm.texi > install -pDm0644 autodocsumm.xml \ > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/help/en/autodocsumm/autodocsumm.xml > popd > popd > Is this ok? Documentation is being built in the install step. Should all building happen in the %build step? If this is ok, maybe it is worth updating the packaging guidelines to indicate documentation can be built in the %install step? At the moment have left as is, but happy to update. spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-autodocsumm.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-autodocsumm-0.2.14-1.fc42~bootstrap.src.rpm A bootstrapped build is available at: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/python-autodocsumm > Out of curiosity: how can you consume the autodocsumm.xml file? Is there a > CLI or GUI tool to display it nicely? > It can be viewed in: https://apps.gnome.org/Yelp/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/yelp/yelp/ https://apps.kde.org/khelpcenter/ https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/khelpcenter/khelpcenter Happy to contribute tooling to pyp2spec if the documentation seems ok and would be nice for other Fedora packages. > 2. Delete the leftover comment: "# Fill in the actual package description to > submit package to Fedora" Done. > > 3. Consider adding doc file > %doc README.rst Done
> Is this ok? Documentation is being built in the install step. Should all > building happen in the %build step? If this is ok, maybe it is worth > updating the packaging guidelines to indicate documentation can be built > in the %install step? I don't think it's documented anywhere, but sometimes packagers use it to avoid the bootstrap: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cbor2/blob/rawhide/f/python-cbor2.spec#_48 or https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mido/blob/rawhide/f/python-mido.spec#_42 In the end it's up to you and definitely a non-blocking issue. A suggestion: if you decide to go the bootstrap route, consider using the newer `%bcond bootstrap 0` syntax, which is easier to comprehend. > > Out of curiosity: how can you consume the autodocsumm.xml file? Is there a > > CLI or GUI tool to display it nicely? > > > > It can be viewed in: > > https://apps.gnome.org/Yelp/ > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/yelp/yelp/ > > https://apps.kde.org/khelpcenter/ > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/khelpcenter/khelpcenter > > Happy to contribute tooling to pyp2spec if the documentation seems ok and > would be nice > for other Fedora packages. > Thank you. I haven't realized there's a GUI help app available in Gnome. As a rule we're not encouraging creating the documentation packages too much (Sphinx and its ecosystem moves in a different pace than Fedora and the maintenance is cumbersome). Review: ===== 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. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 4230 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: [-]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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-autodocsumm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autosummaries', 'Summary(en_US) autosummaries -> auto summaries, auto-summaries, summarizes') python3-autodocsumm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autosummary', '%description -l en_US autosummary -> auto summary, auto-summary, summary') python3-autodocsumm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('init', '%description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit') python3-autodocsumm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autoclass', '%description -l en_US autoclass -> auto class, auto-class, autoclaves') python3-autodocsumm.noarch: E: spelling-error ('autodata', '%description -l en_US autodata -> auto data, auto-data, autodidact') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s Filter out the rpmlint issues when adding package to the repository. Package APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-autodocsumm