Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-book-theme/python-sphinx-book-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-book-theme/python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This is a lightweight Sphinx theme designed to mimic the look-and-feel of an interactive book. It has the following primary features: - Bootstrap 5 for visual elements and functionality - Flexible content layout that is inspired by beautiful online books, such as the Edward Tufte CSS guide - Visual classes designed for Jupyter Notebooks. Cell inputs, outputs, and interactive functionality are all supported. - Launch buttons for online interactivity. For pages that are built with computational material, connect your site to an online BinderHub for interactive content. I am willing to swap reviews.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9500582 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391550-python-sphinx-book-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09500582-python-sphinx-book-theme/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.
Curious why you need this package for, but anyway adding it should be helpful for the package since it tends to not have people look over it. The main build system for this should be the python one, I don't see them testing the nodejs one. Any difficulties in doing so? As for the other parts, I won't be able to pick up this review because I don't have the experience with nodejs packages, hope someone can come and pick it up.
Thanks for the comments, Cristian. I've been building RPMs of this package for quite awhile for my own personal use on a project I'm working on. I thought other people might find it useful, too, so I am submitting it to Fedora. (In reply to Cristian Le from comment #2) > The main build system for this should be the python one, I don't see them > testing the nodejs one. Any difficulties in doing so? I don't understand what this means. Can you clarify, please? We are building with the python build system. The nodejs parts are for processing CSS, if I understand correctly.
[fedora-review-service-build]
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9727683 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391550-python-sphinx-book-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09727683-python-sphinx-book-theme/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.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9727921 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391550-python-sphinx-book-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09727921-python-sphinx-book-theme/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.
%generate_buildrequires -p # Relax strict version requirements sed -i 's/==/>=/g' pyproject.toml Consider moving this to %prep. There is no reason to run this sed for each %generate_buildrequires round. And it would also make the spec simpler if the %generate_buildrequires section is purely declarative.
Thank you, Miro. I have made the suggested change, updated the nodejs components, and adapted to the removal of the %{nodejs_version} macro. [fedora-review-service-build]
Created attachment 2118244 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9727921 to 9892579
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9892579 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2391550-python-sphinx-book-theme/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09892579-python-sphinx-book-theme/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.
I'll review it
Here is my forman Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel ^^^ Looks like a false positive. Should be ignored. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [+/-]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Licensing seems a bit messy (see file sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-vendor-licenses.txt). [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Although we used a plenty of source code licensed under a different licenses during b build stage, what we're shipping is under BSD-3-Clause. [x]: Package owns all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format (%autochangelog). [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: The package does not contain desktop file (not a GUI application). [-]: The package does not have any development files. [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. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: No large documentation files. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [-]: The package does not contain python eggs. [-]: A package is not used by another package via an egg interface. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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]: The source package does includes license text(s). [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (1.1.4). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify first in %prep (upstream does not publish signatures). [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpe4ppomjw')] checks: 32, packages: 2 python-sphinx-book-theme.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-vendor.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s ^^^ We regenerated this file. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 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 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/executablebooks/sphinx-book-theme/archive/v1.1.4/sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e845ce8e58c99ab858fae82b4bbbc62bde226dd861c90ba1f91a26e1113a5775 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e845ce8e58c99ab858fae82b4bbbc62bde226dd861c90ba1f91a26e1113a5775 Requires -------- python3-sphinx-book-theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.14dist(pydata-sphinx-theme) python3.14dist(sphinx) Provides -------- python3-sphinx-book-theme: python-sphinx-book-theme python3-sphinx-book-theme python3.14-sphinx-book-theme python3.14dist(sphinx-book-theme) python3dist(sphinx-book-theme) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2391550 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, C/C++, fonts, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH This package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-book-theme
FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c (python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c
FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1 (python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1
FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-f2050ec79c (python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-9467a039c1 (python-sphinx-book-theme-1.1.4-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.