spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/bs4/python-beautifulsoup4.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/bs4/python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Beautiful Soup is a Python HTML/XML parser designed for quick turnaround projects like screen-scraping. Three features make it powerful: Beautiful Soup won't choke if you give it bad markup. Beautiful Soup provides a few simple methods and Pythonic idioms for navigating, searching, and modifying a parse tree. Beautiful Soup automatically converts incoming documents to Unicode and outgoing documents to UTF-8. Beautiful Soup parses anything you give it. Valuable data that was once locked up in poorly-designed websites is now within your reach. Projects that would have taken hours take only minutes with Beautiful Soup. Fedora Account System Username: terjeros Note: this will obsolete the slightly misplaced bs4 in python-BeautifulSoup (version 3). When this new package is accepted bs4 in python-BeautifulSoup (version 3) will be removed.
No, this must be python3-beautifulsoup as the relevant ABI in the python3 one here.
Sorry, I don't understand, the package provide bs4 for python and python3. bs3 is left untounced as python2 only package.
That was of course: the package provide bs4 for python2 and python3.
OK I miss that you want to build both flavor Now it's remain questionable to still have python-BS-3.2x as compatibility package. Here are the package that depends on it: OpenLP-0:1.9.9-1.fc17.noarch OpenLP-0:1.9.10-2.fc17.noarch anki-0:1.2.9-4.fc17.noarch calibre-0:0.8.42-1.fc17.x86_64 calibre-0:0.8.50-1.fc17.x86_64 mediascrapper-0:0.1-9.fc17.noarch moksha-0:0.5.0-5.fc15.noarch moksha-0:0.8.6-1.fc17.noarch python-imdb-0:4.7-2.fc17.x86_64 python-tw2-jit-0:2.0.3-4.fc17.noarch python-xgoogle-0:1.4-4.fc17.noarch scap-workbench-0:0.6.3-1.fc17.noarch sugar-read-0:99-1.fc17.noarch wordgroupz-0:0.3.1-5.fc17.noarch If the python2 version can run with python-BS-4x there is no reason to keep this compatibility package.
There are some info here: http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/bs4/doc/#porting-code-to-bs4 Don't seems like a drop in replacement to me. Debian also have two packages: http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/python-beautifulsoup http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/python-bs4
I will review this package
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-html5lib python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-html5lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint python3-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm python3-beautifulsoup4.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided python3-BeautifulSoup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/838675/beautifulsoup4-4.1.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : fccee58b4d914fb489385d672fe89f43 MD5SUM upstream package : fccee58b4d914fb489385d672fe89f43 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
> [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > rpmlint python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm > > python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-html5lib > python-beautifulsoup4.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-html5lib > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. This can be ignored, rpmlint grabs the "lib" in the package name. > [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present > Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging > for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 > See: None All of this can be ignored if you're planning also to build for EPEL 5, otherwise please remove all the old directives. > [!]: MUST 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 %doc. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. The package itself is built correctly as it does include the text license file in the package but the license itself is MIT (see COPYING.txt and project's website) and not BSD as stated in the spec file.
> %package -n python3-beautifulsoup4 > Obsoletes: python3-BeautifulSoup < 1:4.1.0-1 I can't find "python3-BeautifulSoup < 1:4.1.0-1" in the Fedora packages, the last version in Fedora is 1:3.2.1-1: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=301717 What is your plan for the updates? Do you plan to introduce the package also for Fedora 16/17 thus obsoleting the package already in stable? Does it produce any breakage? Apart from these small issues the package looks good. Regards, --Simone
Updated package: - License is MIT - Remove old cruft - Fix obsolete spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/bs4/python-beautifulsoup4.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/bs4/python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm Package is will pushed to all active branches, no breakage is the goal.
Approved! Thanks, --Simone
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-beautifulsoup4 Short Description: HTML/XML parser for quick-turnaround applications like screen-scraping Owners: terjeros kwizart Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc16
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
There is an little issue with the python3 requirement that should only be in the python3 sub-package if built with python3. This lead to have the python2 flavor to requires python3 dependencies.
Yeah, I see that now, some req. need to be moved.
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-4.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
python-beautifulsoup4-4.1.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
Adding an epel branch. See bug 883537 where the Fedora maintainer is fine with me doing an epel branch. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: python-beautifulsoup4 New Branches: el6 Owners: kevin InitialCC: