[Bug 2025908] New: Review Request: pyp2spec - Generate valid Fedora spec files for Python projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Bug ID: 2025908 Summary: Review Request: pyp2spec - Generate valid Fedora spec files for Python projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ksurma@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ksurma/pyp2spec/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ksurma/pyp2spec/fedora-ra... Description: pyp2spec generates working Fedora spec file for Python projects. The produced spec files are compliant with the current Python Packaging Guidelines (in effect since 2021). It utilizes the benefits of pyproject-rpm-macros. Fedora Account System Username: ksurma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ksurma/pyp2spec/fedora-ra... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ksurma/pyp2spec/fedora-ra... Description: pyp2spec generates working Fedora spec file for Python projects. The produced spec files are compliant with the current Python Packaging Guidelines (in effect since 2021). It utilizes the benefits of pyproject-rpm-macros. Fedora Account System Username: ksurma
Fedora Review was run on the package here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ksurma/pyp2spec/build/2983406/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Tomáš Hrnčiar thrnciar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |thrnciar@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |thrnciar@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Tomáš Hrnčiar thrnciar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #1 from Tomáš Hrnčiar thrnciar@redhat.com --- I've verified that the package works as expected. The package is APPROVED.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License Creative Commons CC0 Universal 1.0 Public Domain Dedication", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License ISC License Attribution Assurance License IBM Public License GNU Free Documentation License Common Public License CeCILL License Artistic License Apple Public Source License Apache License Academic Free License Mozilla Public License 2.0 Mozilla Public License 1.1 Mozilla Public License 1.0 European Union Public License, Version 1.2 European Union Public License, Version 1.1 European Union Public License, Version 1.0 Eclipse Public License 2.0 Eclipse Public License 1.0 Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 Boost Software License 1.0 GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later GNU Library General Public License v2 or later GNU General Public License v3.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 or later". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/pyp2spec/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [-]: 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 [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [x]: 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. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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]: 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).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: pyp2spec-0.1.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm pyp2spec-0.1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm pyp2spec.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyproject -> projector, project pyp2spec.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary conf2spec pyp2spec.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp2conf pyp2spec.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyp2spec pyp2spec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pyproject -> projector, project 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/pyp2spec/pyp2spec-0.1.0.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : edc705399033131671f61b25783fe9b2a22e2effd923512594d2cc718741dedd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : edc705399033131671f61b25783fe9b2a22e2effd923512594d2cc718741dedd
Requires -------- pyp2spec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.10dist(click) python3.10dist(jinja2) python3.10dist(requests) python3.10dist(tomli) python3.10dist(tomli-w)
Provides -------- pyp2spec: pyp2spec python3.10dist(pyp2spec) python3dist(pyp2spec)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name pyp2spec --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Java, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Before including this in Fedora, I highly recommend changing the version to be a pre-release (ideally alpha) to better communicate the (lack of) stability of the behavior and API.
Adding this to Fedora as is and updating it later might be in violation of Fedora Updates policy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
--- Comment #3 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- Thanks for pointing out possible update problems. I'm starting to think maybe it's too early to bring the package to Fedora at all; as for now it could be enough to have it in a Copr repository and come back to including it when it's more mature.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
--- Comment #4 from Igor Raits igor.raits@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyp2spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2021-12-06 07:51:28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025908
--- Comment #5 from Karolina Surma ksurma@redhat.com --- *** Bug 2097612 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com