[Bug 1720577] New: Review Request: python-podman-api - Python bindings for using Varlink access to Podman Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Bug ID: 1720577 Summary: Review Request: python-podman-api - Python bindings for using Varlink access to Podman Service Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: athoscribeiro@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org//python-podman-api.spec SRPM URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org//python-podman-api-0.0.0-0.1.20190613gitd0a...
Description: Python bindings for using Varlink access to Podman Service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35537319
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- Updated spec file due to wrong email address in changelog
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35537798
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ttomecek@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- I can see this being already packaged in Fedora:
$ dnf info python3-podman
Name : python3-podman Epoch : 1 Version : 0.12.1.2 Release : 1.git9551f6b.fc29 Architecture : noarch Size : 150 k Source : podman-0.12.1.2-1.git9551f6b.fc29.src.rpm Repository : @System From repo : updates Summary : Python 3 bindings for podman URL : https://podman.io/ License : ASL 2.0 Description : This package contains Python 3 bindings for podman.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Athos Ribeiro athos@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |athos@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Athos Ribeiro athos@redhat.com --- It seems it has been dropped from the podman src package without an obsoletes tag 5 months ago: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/podman/c/933aaa6d9134496d28020932bf284142...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package 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. [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* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-podman-api/review-python-podman- api/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 10 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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-podman-api-0.0.0-0.1.20190613gitd0a45fe.fc31.noarch.rpm python-podman-api-0.0.0-0.1.20190613gitd0a45fe.fc31.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
--- Comment #6 from Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
Should I add an
Obsoletes: python3-podman < 2:0.12.2-28 Provides: python3-podman = 2:0.12.2-28
based in the latest podman release shipping python3-podman: 2:0.12.2-27.dev.git0f6535c.fc30
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=16178816
?
Another option for the provides would be to bump the epoch and have
Provides: python3-podman = 3:%{version}-%{release}
Given upstream project no longer has a version (as pointed in the spec file)
Thoughts?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- If you want to provides an upgrade path, you should:
Obsoletes: python3-podman < 2:0.12.2-28 Provides: python3-podman = 3:%{version}-%{release}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-podman-api
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-2611fdfc48 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2611fdfc48
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-podman-api-0.0.0-0.1.20190613gitd0a45fe.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2611fdfc48
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720577
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-07-03 01:15:41
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- python-podman-api-0.0.0-0.1.20190613gitd0a45fe.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com