[Bug 2121593] New: Review Request: python-sphinx-basic-ng - Modernized skeleton for Sphinx themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Bug ID: 2121593 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx-basic-ng - Modernized skeleton for Sphinx themes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-basic-ng/python-sphinx-basic-n... SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-basic-ng/python-sphinx-basic-n... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: A modernized skeleton for Sphinx themes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2121594
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121594 [Bug 2121594] Review Request: python-furo - Clean customizable Sphinx documentation theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org --- See comments at the bottom.
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonathan/fedora-review/2121593-python-sphinx- basic-ng/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. [x]: 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: 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. [x]: 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: [x]: 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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/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: 32, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pradyunsg/sphinx-basic-ng/archive/0.0.1.a12/sphinx-basic-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d3ae696bdf5237060e9cf577d0e49d5aac3d0dbca8c8650a2870b6dd5ec4f6b9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d3ae696bdf5237060e9cf577d0e49d5aac3d0dbca8c8650a2870b6dd5ec4f6b9
Requires -------- python3-sphinx-basic-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(sphinx) < 6~~ with python3.11dist(sphinx) >= 4) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-sphinx-basic-ng: python-sphinx-basic-ng python3-sphinx-basic-ng python3.11-sphinx-basic-ng python3.11dist(sphinx-basic-ng) python3dist(sphinx-basic-ng)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121593 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, Java, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
----------------
Notes:
I've seen a lot of python packages start leaving out (sphinx) documentation due to the complexity and licensing mess that ensues. Do you want to consider that here? If you leave out docs then MIT covers it all.
Version: 0.0.1 Release: 0.1.%{prerel}%{?dist}
This isn't really the right way to do pre-release stuff. [1]
I'd do something like this:
Version: 0.0.1a12 Release: 1%{?dist}
Another ref on this [2]
%{py3_dist X}
Everywhere you're using this just do `python3-X` instead. It's far simpler. What you're using is the OLD style which shouldn't be used anymore. [3]
In fact you could use some newer macros in the %prep section instead to automatically grab these things:
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires
This should knock out almost all of your BRs at least outside of the %if (except for python-devel of course which must stay). [4]
%autosetup -n sphinx-basic-ng-%{version}.%{prerel} -p1
Will need to be corrected after dropping prerel above. Version in %changelog as well of course.
===================
1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_prere... 2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples 3. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python_201x/#_requ... 4. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_build_mac...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #1)
I've seen a lot of python packages start leaving out (sphinx) documentation due to the complexity and licensing mess that ensues. Do you want to consider that here? If you leave out docs then MIT covers it all.
I like having local documentation so that I can keep working in that inevitable moment when the network goes away. I'm willing to sort through the complexity and licensing mess to achieve that.
Version: 0.0.1 Release: 0.1.%{prerel}%{?dist}
This isn't really the right way to do pre-release stuff. [1]
Sure it is. Reference [1] says "In the Version: tag, use the version that upstream has determined the next release will be." That's 0.0.1. Then [1] says "For the field of the Release: tag, use a number of the form "0.N" where N is an integer beginning with 1 and increasing for each revision of the package." That's 0.1 for the initial package. As for reference [2], if you look at the example labeled "Example (pkg pre-release)" you will see it looks *exactly* like what I've got in this spec file, including the 3rd release field to indicate which prerelease version it is.
This is the reason for the policy given in [1]: $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1a12-1 0.0.1-1 0.0.1a12-1 > 0.0.1-1 $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1-0.1.a12 0.0.1-1 0.0.1-0.1.a12 < 0.0.1-1
With version 0.0.1a12 and release 1, the final 0.0.1 release will sort *lower* than the alpha release.
%{py3_dist X}
Everywhere you're using this just do `python3-X` instead. It's far simpler. What you're using is the OLD style which shouldn't be used anymore. [3]
I don't see where you get that. The link you gave is to the old version of the Python guidelines. This is the current version: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/. It says nothing about avoiding py3_dist. In fact, it uses the word "useful" in conjunction with the py3_dist macro: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_manual_ge....
In fact you could use some newer macros in the %prep section instead to automatically grab these things:
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires
This should knock out almost all of your BRs at least outside of the %if (except for python-devel of course which must stay). [4]
Yes. I deliberately avoid use of automatically generated BuildRequires. The primary reason is that I maintain hundreds of packages, and have developed a workflow that involves grepping through spec files to help me manage dependency chains. Automatically generated BuildRequires hide those dependencies from grep. (A secondary reason is that it seems silly to use power-sucking computing resources to generate the same list over and over, instead of generating the list once and then caching it until something changes that might require the list to be regenerated.)
%autosetup -n sphinx-basic-ng-%{version}.%{prerel} -p1
Will need to be corrected after dropping prerel above. Version in %changelog as well of course.
No change needed as the spec file is correct in this regard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wright jonathan@almalinux.org ---
Version: 0.0.1 Release: 0.1.%{prerel}%{?dist}
This isn't really the right way to do pre-release stuff. [1]
Sure it is. Reference [1] says "In the Version: tag, use the version that upstream has determined the next release will be." That's 0.0.1. Then [1] says "For the field of the Release: tag, use a number of the form "0.N" where N is an integer beginning with 1 and increasing for each revision of the package." That's 0.1 for the initial package. As for reference [2], if you look at the example labeled "Example (pkg pre-release)" you will see it looks *exactly* like what I've got in this spec file, including the 3rd release field to indicate which prerelease version it is.
This is the reason for the policy given in [1]: $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1a12-1 0.0.1-1 0.0.1a12-1 > 0.0.1-1 $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.0.1-0.1.a12 0.0.1-1 0.0.1-0.1.a12 < 0.0.1-1
With version 0.0.1a12 and release 1, the final 0.0.1 release will sort *lower* than the alpha release.
Indeed you're correct.
Package is APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-basic-ng
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- The builds are done for Rawhide and F37. A buildroot override has been submitted for F37. To make sure they are available for building against, run:
Rawhide: koji wait-repo --target rawhide --build=python-sphinx-basic-ng-0.0.1-0.1.a12.fc38~bootstrap F37: koji wait-repo f37-build --build=python-sphinx-basic-ng-0.0.1-0.1.a12.fc37~bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba
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=2121593
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-09-14 00:20:37
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-7be896e1ba has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com