[Bug 2152757] New: Review Request: python-sdnotify - python implementation of systemd's service notification protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Bug ID: 2152757 Summary: Review Request: python-sdnotify - python implementation of systemd's service notification protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: neil@shrug.pw QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://git.shrug.pw/neil/python-sdnotify/src/branch/rawhide/SPECS/python-sd... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/neil/python-sdnotify/fedo... Description:
This is a pure Python implementation of the systemd sd_notify protocol. This protocol can be used to inform systemd about service start-up completion, watchdog events, and other service status changes. Thus, this package can be used to write system services in Python that play nicely with systemd. sdnotify is compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3.
Fedora Account System Username: neil
This is my first package in Fedora, and as such I do require a sponsor.
I built it against rawhide here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neil/python-sdnotify/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://git.shrug.pw/neil/python-sdnotify/raw/branch/rawhide/python-sdnotify... SRPM URL: https://git.shrug.pw/api/packages/neil/generic/python-sdnotify/0.3.2/python-... Description:
This is a pure Python implementation of the systemd sd_notify protocol. This protocol can be used to inform systemd about service start-up completion, watchdog events, and other service status changes. Thus, this package can be used to write system services in Python that play nicely with systemd. sdnotify is compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3.
Fedora Account System Username: neil
This is my first package in Fedora, and as such I do require a sponsor.
I built it against rawhide here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neil/python-sdnotify/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel@michel-slm.name CC| |michel@michel-slm.name Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- Taking this review. Welcome Neil!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(neil@shrug.pw)
--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- This mostly looks good. Some issues (easily fixable):
- the release tag (0) does not match the changelog (1). Since the change to use rpmautospec by default is accepted recently (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default), just use that: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html
- this won't work without systemd installed, but the automatic dependency generator will only generate Python dependencies. You'd want to manually `Require: systemd`
- the project does not come with any tests, so you probably want to at least add some smoke tests - you're using the new Python %pyproject* macros, so add this (normally after the %install section): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#pyproject_...
%check %pyproject_check_import
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: "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/2152757-python- sdnotify/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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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-sdnotify-0.3.2-0.fc38.noarch.rpm python-sdnotify-0.3.2-0.fc38.src.rpm ============================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqtz061te')] checks: 31, packages: 2
python3-sdnotify.noarch: W: no-documentation =============================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ==============================
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
python3-sdnotify.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sdnotify/sdnotify-0.3.2.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73977fc746b36cc41184dd43c3fe81323e7b8b06c2bb0826c4f59a20c56bb9f1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73977fc746b36cc41184dd43c3fe81323e7b8b06c2bb0826c4f59a20c56bb9f1
Requires -------- python3-sdnotify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-sdnotify: python-sdnotify python3-sdnotify python3.11-sdnotify python3.11dist(sdnotify) python3dist(sdnotify)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2152757 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, R, fonts, Perl, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(neil@shrug.pw) |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name)
--- Comment #3 from Neil Hanlon neil@shrug.pw --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #2)
This mostly looks good. Some issues (easily fixable):
- the release tag (0) does not match the changelog (1). Since the change to
use rpmautospec by default is accepted recently (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default), just use that: https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/index.html
- this won't work without systemd installed, but the automatic dependency
generator will only generate Python dependencies. You'd want to manually `Require: systemd`
- the project does not come with any tests, so you probably want to at least
add some smoke tests - you're using the new Python %pyproject* macros, so add this (normally after the %install section): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #pyproject_check_import
%check %pyproject_check_import
Thank you! I have made the changes as requested.
Spec URL: https://git.shrug.pw/neil/python-sdnotify/src/branch/rawhide/python-sdnotify... Srpm URL: https://git.shrug.pw/api/packages/neil/generic/python-sdnotify/0.3.2/python-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5298803 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) |
--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name --- LGTM, approved!
I have added you to the packager list. I see you've posted to the development list once, but have not seen a self-introduction, so please do that at some point: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package...
Feel free to ask me about packaging questions!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sdnotify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f491503294 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f491503294
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca
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=2152757
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87
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=2152757
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f491503294 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-f491503294 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f491503294
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=2152757
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-04 01:16:26
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-51b9b9feca has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-f491503294 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2152757
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1355099d87 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com