[Bug 1916648] New: Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Bug ID: 1916648 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx_lv2_theme - A minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: guido.aulisi@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme.spec SRPM URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rp... Description: This is a minimal pure-CSS theme for Sphinx that uses the documentation style of the LV2 plugin specification and related projects. Fedora Account System Username: tartina
This theme is needed to build documentation for new versions of several LV2 plugin packages like serd, sord, lv2...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com)
--- Comment #1 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- To verify which compatibility macros are, and are not, required, can I ask which supported releases you are planning to build for? F34 obviously, but what about F33, F32, EPEL8, EPEL7? All of the above?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com) |
--- Comment #2 from Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com --- I'm planning to build for all fedora supported releases: f32, f33, f34. If it's not too problematic I will try a build for epel8, but it's not mandatory.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |code@musicinmybrain.net Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com)
--- Comment #3 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- So the issues I found were mostly a matter of excessive macro complexity. I think there is no need to try to be compatible with situations that do not occur in supported Fedora releases or in EPEL8. Otherwise, this seems to be a nice, clean package.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues =====
[!]: The %python_provide macro is obsolete, and should not be used on Fedora. Its replacement, %py_provides, is only needed on Fedora 32, at least for python3-* packages. To remind yourself to remove the latter when no longer needed, I recommend the following if you want to build for F32-F34 and EPEL8:
%if 0%{?epel} && 0%{?epel} <= 8 %{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name}} %elif 0%{?fedora} == 32 %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name} %endif
See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_pr.... [!]: %{?!python3_pkgversion:%global python3_pkgversion 3} is not needed; it will already be defined in EPEL7 as “36” and in EPEL8 and Fedora as “3”. See (non-authoritative) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python3EPEL. [!]: %{?python_enable_dependency_generator} does not really do anything. The dependency generator is enabled by default on all supported Fedoras and EPEL8, and not available on EPEL7. [!]: Since you are not targeting EPEL7, the conditional manual Requires are not needed either.
[?]: There is no rule against repeating yourself, but a common pattern is:
%global common_description %{expand: Lots of text goes here
and here.}
%description %{common_description}
# (later in the spec file) %description -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name} \ %{common_description}
You don’t have to do that, but it does tidy up the spec file a bit. [?]: Please consider the following simplification:
URL: https://gitlab.com/lv2/%%7Bpypi_name%7D Source0: %{url}/-/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-v%{version}.tar.bz2
===== 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* ISC License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/1916648-python- sphinx_lv2_theme/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
No compiled or minified CSS or JavaScript may be included, unless it is created from the original sources as part of the RPM build and the original sources are included; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Web_Assets/#_css and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/.
The good news is, this package has no JavaScript and uses simple, hand-written CSS, so there is no problem.
[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: 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 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]: 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0:
https://gitlab.com/lv2/sphinx_lv2_theme/-/archive/v1.0.0/sphinx_lv2_theme-v1... See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
This is bogus; the URL is fine.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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.
Upstream tarball lacks tests.
[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]: 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_lv2_theme-1.0.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sphinx_lv2_theme-1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-sphinx_lv2_theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(sphinx)
Provides -------- python3-sphinx_lv2_theme: python-sphinx_lv2_theme python3-sphinx_lv2_theme python3.9-sphinx_lv2_theme python3.9dist(sphinx-lv2-theme) python3dist(sphinx-lv2-theme)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916648 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, fonts, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #4 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- In my suggestion above,
%elif 0%{?fedora} == 32
should have been
%endif %if 0%{?fedora} == 32
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(guido.aulisi@gmai | |l.com) |
--- Comment #5 from Guido Aulisi guido.aulisi@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme.spec SRPM URL: https://tartina.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx_lv2_theme-1.0.0-2.fc34.src.rp...
I tried to follow all your suggestions, if I missed something, let me know.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
code@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Beautiful, thanks! Approved. Scratch builds (to check the build on each release you were targeting) and full re-review below.
The fedora-review program does complain:
Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0:
https://gitlab.com/lv2/sphinx_lv2_theme/-/archive/v1.0.0/sphinx_lv2_theme-v1... See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/
but it works fine for me, either manually using curl/wget/firefox, or using “spectool -g”, so I think this is just a fedora-review artifact. If you start having trouble with this URL later, you can try the “forge” macros documented in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/, but as long it works, what you have is great.
Koji scratch builds: F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59850676 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59850768 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59850849 EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59851148
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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* ISC License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/python-sphinx_lv2_theme/re- review/1916648-python-sphinx_lv2_theme/licensecheck.txt [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: 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 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]: 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: [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0:
https://gitlab.com/lv2/sphinx_lv2_theme/-/archive/v1.0.0/sphinx_lv2_theme-v1... See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/
Works for me.
[-]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: 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_lv2_theme-1.0.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm python-sphinx_lv2_theme-1.0.0-2.fc34.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-sphinx_lv2_theme (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(sphinx)
Provides -------- python3-sphinx_lv2_theme: python-sphinx_lv2_theme python3-sphinx_lv2_theme python3.9-sphinx_lv2_theme python3.9dist(sphinx-lv2-theme) python3dist(sphinx-lv2-theme)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1916648 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx_lv2_theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-01-27 04:11:47
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-01fe71fe47 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a9f3cec754 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916648
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f5b9c80f3b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com