[Bug 1998886] New: Review Request: python3-liblarch - A Python library to easily handle complex data structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Bug ID: 1998886 Summary: Review Request: python3-liblarch - A Python library to easily handle complex data structures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: reisaraujo.miguel@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch/fe...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch/fe...
Description: Liblarch is a python library built to easily handle data structure such are lists, trees and acyclic graphs (tree where nodes can have multiple parents). There's also a liblarch-gtk binding that will allow you to use your data structure into a Gtk.Treeview.
Liblarch support multiple views of one data structure and complex filtering. That way, you have a clear separation between your data themselves (Model) and how they are displayed (View).
Fedora Account System Username: miguel7ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Miguel reisaraujo.miguel@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Miguel reisaraujo.miguel@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
Description: Liblarch is a python library built to easily handle data structure such are lists, trees and acyclic graphs (tree where nodes can have multiple parents). There's also a liblarch-gtk binding that will allow you to use your data structure into a Gtk.Treeview.
Liblarch support multiple views of one data structure and complex filtering. That way, you have a clear separation between your data themselves (Model) and how they are displayed (View).
Fedora Account System Username: miguel7ra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Miguel reisaraujo.miguel@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
Description: Liblarch is a python library built to easily handle data structure such are lists, trees and acyclic graphs (tree where nodes can have multiple parents). There's also a liblarch_gtk binding that will allow you to use your data structure into a Gtk.Treeview.
Liblarch support multiple views of one data structure and complex filtering. That way, you have a clear separation between your data themselves (Model) and how they are displayed (View).
Fedora Account System Username: miguel7ra
This package was retired 3 years ago but is active again, I need to un-retire it to be able to un-retire Getting Things Gnome! (gtg) that also returned to activity.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I notice that the %check script is commented out with a note that a display is needed to run the tests. That's what Xvfb is for! If you add these BuildRequires:
BuildRequires: gtk3-devel BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pygobject} BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pytest} BuildRequires: xorg-x11-server-Xvfb
and the write the %check script like this:
%check PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib} xvfb-run -d %{_bindir}/pytest
then the tests run, and pass. (And, incidentally, reveal that the liblarch tests use multiple deprecated interfaces.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #2 from Miguel miguel7r.araujo@gmail.com --- I updated my spec file to run the tests. I was able to run the test in mock and copr without specifying the "PYTHONPATH" variable, so I didn't put it in the spec file.
Here is the new spec file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
Here is the new srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miguel from comment #2)
I updated my spec file to run the tests. I was able to run the test in mock and copr without specifying the "PYTHONPATH" variable, so I didn't put it in the spec file.
Sure, for a noarch Python package, that won't matter.
I will take this review. Do you have a sponsor lined up yet?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-liblarch See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
The above warning is from fedora-review. That's okay. This is deliberate. You'll have to be sure to follow the steps here, though:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_...
- Consider using a Source0 URL that gives the tarball a name, as described here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_ta...
In this case, something like this would do: Source0: https://github.com/getting-things-gnome/liblarch/archive/v%%7Bversion%7D/lib...
- You are strongly encouraged to use the package name python3-liblarch-gtk (with a dash) instead of python3-liblarch_gtk (with an underscore). This is not a requirement, but is strongly encouraged. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_separator...
- The Requires in the python3-liblarch_gtk subpackage should read:
Requires: python3-liblarch = %{version}-%{release}
See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_p...
- Fedora has a python3-gobject-base package, which is all of pygobject except the cairo interface. This package doesn't seem to need the cairo part, so I think the BuildRequires and Requires of python3-gobject can probably both be changed to python3-gobject-base. Can you try that and see?
Incidentally, that's why I suggested a BuildRequires of %{py3_dist pygobject}, which resolves to python3-gobject-base.
- The python3-liblarch and python3-liblarch_gtk packages both contain each other's files. The issue is that there is a single %pyproject_save_files invocation for both modules, so they get the same file lists via -f %{pyproject_files}.
- The python3-liblarch_gtk package is missing some dependency. If I install it into an empty mock chroot and try to import it, I get this:
$ python3 Python 3.10.0rc2 (default, Sep 8 2021, 00:00:00) [GCC 11.2.1 20210728 (Red Hat 11.2.1-1)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
import liblarch_gtk
Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/liblarch_gtk/__init__.py", line 21, in <module> gi.require_version("Gtk", "3.0") # noqa File "/usr/lib64/python3.10/site-packages/gi/__init__.py", line 126, in require_version raise ValueError('Namespace %s not available' % namespace) ValueError: Namespace Gtk not available
If I install the gtk3 package into the mock chroot and try again, I get a connection error. If I run "xvfb-run -d python3" and then import liblarch_gtk, that works.
Bottom line: I think python3-liblarch_gtk should have Requires: gtk3.
This makes me wonder if BuildRequires: gtk3 is sufficient, instead of requiring gtk3-devel.
===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3". 17 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 40960 bytes in 11 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]: 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 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-liblarch , python3-liblarch_gtk [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-liblarch-3.1.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python3-liblarch_gtk-3.1.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-liblarch-3.1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm python3-liblarch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Liblarch -> Lib larch, Lib-larch, Oligarch python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gtk -> gt, gt k python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Treeview -> Tree view, Tree-view, Preview python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k python3-liblarch_gtk.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Treeview -> Tree view, Tree-view, Preview python-liblarch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US acyclic -> cyclic, a cyclic, acyclovir 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ================================================ rpmlint session starts ================================================ rpmlint: 2.1.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2
================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =================
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/getting-things-gnome/liblarch/archive/refs/tags/v3.1.0.ta... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8542f51bde7a064fe81556ee34acfb124bd783e9c4e8826ca1b07445cdde5690 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8542f51bde7a064fe81556ee34acfb124bd783e9c4e8826ca1b07445cdde5690
Requires -------- python3-liblarch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-gobject
python3-liblarch_gtk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-liblarch
Provides -------- python3-liblarch: python-liblarch python3-liblarch python3.10-liblarch python3.10dist(liblarch) python3dist(liblarch)
python3-liblarch_gtk: python-liblarch_gtk python3-liblarch_gtk python3.10-liblarch_gtk python3.10dist(liblarch) python3dist(liblarch)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1998886 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: Perl, R, Java, Haskell, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Ruby, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- The bug name needs to match the Name and Summary fields in the spec file for various tools to work properly. Please change the bug name to:
Review Request: python-liblarch - Data structures helper library for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Miguel miguel7r.araujo@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python3-liblarch - A Python |python-liblarch - Data |library to easily handle |structures helper library |complex data structures |for python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #6 from Miguel miguel7r.araujo@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
(In reply to Miguel from comment #2)
I updated my spec file to run the tests. I was able to run the test in mock and copr without specifying the "PYTHONPATH" variable, so I didn't put it in the spec file.
Sure, for a noarch Python package, that won't matter.
I will take this review. Do you have a sponsor lined up yet?
I do not have a sponsor yet, but someone called Kevin Fenzi said on the devel mailing list that they could be my sponsor if they have time, but didn't confirmed anything yet.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
- The python3-liblarch and python3-liblarch_gtk packages both contain each other's files. The issue is that there is a single %pyproject_save_files invocation for both modules, so they get the same file lists via -f %{pyproject_files}.
That's the way it is specified here in the "Generating the %files section": https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros
I tried to split it into two lines and put them before each %files call, like this:
``` %pyproject_save_files liblarch
%files -n python3-liblarch -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.md examples
%pyproject_save_files liblarch_gtk
%files -n python3-liblarch-gtk -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.md ```
but I got these errors when running mock:
``` + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 Processing files: python3-liblarch-3.1.0-1.fc34.noarch error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --output error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --buildroot error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --sitelib error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --sitearch error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --python-version error: File must begin with "/": 3.9 error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": --pyproject-record error: File must begin with "/": \ error: File must begin with "/": liblarch_gtk ```
If I put one line right after the other I got an error with installed but unpackaged files:
``` error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__init__.py
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filteredtree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filteredtree.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filters_bank.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filters_bank.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/processqueue.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/processqueue.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/tree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/tree.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/treenode.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/treenode.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewcount.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewcount.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewtree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewtree.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/filteredtree.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/filters_bank.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/processqueue.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/tree.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/treenode.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/viewcount.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/viewtree.py Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__init__.py
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filteredtree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filteredtree.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filters_bank.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/filters_bank.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/processqueue.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/processqueue.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/tree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/tree.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/treenode.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/treenode.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewcount.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewcount.cpython-39.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewtree.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/__pycache__/viewtree.cpython-39.pyc /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/filteredtree.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/filters_bank.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/processqueue.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/tree.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/treenode.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/viewcount.py /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/liblarch/viewtree.py ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Miguel from comment #6)
I do not have a sponsor yet, but someone called Kevin Fenzi said on the devel mailing list that they could be my sponsor if they have time, but didn't confirmed anything yet.
Okay. If Kevin doesn't have time, ping me.
That's the way it is specified here in the "Generating the %files section": https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros
Yes, but that's for a single package. You're trying to make two packages that each contain one module, so that approach isn't going to work.
I tried to split it into two lines and put them before each %files call, like this:
%pyproject_save_files liblarch %files -n python3-liblarch -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.md examples %pyproject_save_files liblarch_gtk %files -n python3-liblarch-gtk -f %{pyproject_files} %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.mdbut I got these errors when running mock:
Right, %pyproject_save_files is a macro that expands to shell code, so it can't go in %files, which is just a list of files. Maybe somebody else has a better idea, but I think you're going to have to use an explicit list of files, instead of using %pyproject_save_files.
%install %pyproject_install
...
%files -n python3-liblarch %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.md examples %{python3_sitelib}/liblarch/ %{python3_sitelib}/liblarch-%{version}.dist-info/
%files -n python3-liblarch_gtk %license LICENSE %doc AUTHORS README.md %{python3_sitelib}/liblarch_gtk/
That's not as pretty as the %pyproject_save_files approach, but it works. Also, to answer my own questions above: - Yes, gtk3 seems to be sufficient, rather than gtk3-devel. - Yes, python3-gobject-base seems to be sufficient, rather than python3-gobject.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #8 from Miguel miguel7r.araujo@gmail.com --- I think I have fixed all issues with the spec file:
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/miguel7ra/python-liblarch...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I agree. You have fixed all the issues, so this package is APPROVED. We just need to take care of sponsoring you now. If Kevin wishes to do that, that's great. Otherwise, let me know and I will do it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@scrye.com
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Why don't you go ahead... since you have already been involved. :)
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
--- Comment #11 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Done. You are now a Fedora packager, Miguel. I'll send you an email in a few minutes with some more information.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998886
Miguel miguel7r.araujo@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2021-10-10 00:36:00
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com