https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Bug ID: 2136778 Summary: Review Request: python-setupmeta - Simplify your setup.py Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.ankur@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-setupmeta/python-setupmeta.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-setupmeta/python-setupmeta-3.3.2-...
Description: Writing a setup.py typically involves lots of boilerplate and copy-pasting from project to project.
This package aims to simplify that and bring some DRY principle to python packaging.
Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks| |1276941 (fedora-neuro)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- I'm taking this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Just one issue:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. => Please add LICENSE file to package using %license
Once fixed the package is good to go --> APPROVED
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [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]: 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. [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.
Rpmlint ------- No errors.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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 checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/setupmeta/setupmeta-3.3.2.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 221463a64d2528ba558f14b087410e05a7ef0dab17d19004f124a262d6e007f5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 221463a64d2528ba558f14b087410e05a7ef0dab17d19004f124a262d6e007f5
Requires -------- python3-setupmeta (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-setupmeta: python-setupmeta python3-setupmeta python3.11-setupmeta python3.11dist(setupmeta) python3dist(setupmeta)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Thanks for the quick review, Sandro
The license file is included by the pyproject macros:
rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./results_python-setupmeta/3.3.2/2.fc38/python3-setupmeta-3.3.2-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setupmeta-3.3.2.dist-info/LICENSE
This, unfortunately, needs to be checked manually at the moment from what I know---fedora-review doesn't pick it up.
Requesting SCM now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
--- Comment #5 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4)
The license file is included by the pyproject macros:
rpm -ql --licensefiles -p ./results_python-setupmeta/3.3.2/2.fc38/python3-setupmeta-3.3.2-2.fc38. noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setupmeta-3.3.2.dist-info/LICENSE
I thought the license files still need to go into /usr/share/licenses/%{name}. But looking at the Licensing Guide it's a bit vague regarding that requirement. Using %license, as suggested in the Licensing Guide, would put it there.
One advantage of having it in /usr/share/licenses is that it makes it transparent looking at files.dir from fedora-review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(mhroncok@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #6 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- I'm not sure if this applies here, but reading Miro's comment for his Root License Directory patch [1] seems to suggest, that you still need to use %license in the spec file:
%pyproject_save_files: Support License-Files installed into the *Root License Directory* from PEP 369
Files still need to be marked as License-File to be considered %license, but if their path in METADATA is specified relative to dist-info/licenses, they are correctly recognised.
This makes License-Files specified by hatchling 1.9.0+ marked as %license.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/c/92ad52e5d4b941ebc7...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mhroncok@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license file is already part of --licensefiles.
There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct metadata.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_s... and look up %license.
My comment for the Root License Directory patch does say that files marked as License-File in upstream metadata are marked as %license in the file list. It does not say that you should duplicate the %license entry at all.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
--- Comment #8 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Thanks for the clarification. I was going by the Licensing Guide, which says:
"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 must be included in %license"
That made me think the LICENSE file has to be explicitly included as %license LICENSE. If the marking by %pyproject_save_files is sufficient, I guess I can clean up my own spec files and remove the explicit %license LICENSE, which indeed duplicates the LICENSE file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- %pyproject_save_files marks it as %licens,e if the upstream metadata marks it as License-File.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license file is already part of --licensefiles.
There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct metadata.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_example_spec_file and look up %license.
This comes up a *lot*. I’d like to propose that we explicitly clarify this point in the Licensing Guidelines, but I haven’t yet figured out how to word it without making the relevant section too verbose and meandering.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
--- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10)
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license file is already part of --licensefiles.
There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct metadata.
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_example_spec_file and look up %license.
This comes up a *lot*. I’d like to propose that we explicitly clarify this point in the Licensing Guidelines, but I haven’t yet figured out how to word it without making the relevant section too verbose and meandering.
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2022-11-07 13:20:35
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com