[Bug 2328464] New: Review Request: python-standard-mailcap - restore removed mailcap dead battery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Bug ID: 2328464 Summary: Review Request: python-standard-mailcap - restore removed mailcap dead battery Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dick@mrns.nl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/meeuw/alot/python-standard-m... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_... Description: Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery". Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/youknowo | |ne/python-deadlib
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8305772 (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
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Can the unit tests be run?
https://github.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/blob/main/.github/workflows/tes...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #4 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Thanks for your help! I will have a look.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Python Software Foundation License 2.0". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/python-standard-mailcap/2328464-python- standard-mailcap/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.13/site- packages, /usr/lib/python3.13 [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [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). [ ]: 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-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts =============================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpx4lokq03')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-standard-mailcap.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery". python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery". python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: no-documentation python-standard-mailcap.src: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594. python-standard-mailcap.src: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries. python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594. python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries. ========== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings, 7 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 3.3 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1
python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery". python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Python is moving forward! Python finally started to remove dead batteries. For more information, see PEP 594. python3-standard-mailcap.noarch: E: description-line-too-long If your project depends on a module that has been removed from the standard, here is the redistribution of the dead batteries. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/standard_mailcap/standard_m... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 19ed7955dbeaccb35e8bb05b2b5443ce55c1f932a8cbe7a5c13d42f9db4f499a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 19ed7955dbeaccb35e8bb05b2b5443ce55c1f932a8cbe7a5c13d42f9db4f499a
Requires -------- python3-standard-mailcap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-standard-mailcap: python-standard-mailcap python3-standard-mailcap python3.13-standard-mailcap python3.13dist(standard-mailcap) python3dist(standard-mailcap)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2328464 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please shorten the lines in the description to 80 characters or less, and remove the full stop at the end of the summary line. b) Koji build with tests: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=126170052 Perhaps suggest to upsream not to use Python internal testing functions and use only functions form unittest: https://docs.python.org/3/library/test.html#module-test Sections that needed modification in spec file below:
Source0: %{pypi_source standard_mailcap} # Test file not distributed on pypi Source1: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/2de4e1d4a7b247cd...
BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: python3-devel # tests BuildRequires: python3-test : : sed -i -e "s/setuptools>=75.0/setuptools>=69.0/" pyproject.toml cp %{SOURCE1} tests/ touch tests/__init__.py : : %pyproject_check_import %{py3_test_envvars} %{python3} -m unittest
c) Please add %doc README.rst to end of file listing d) Approved, though please make at least changes (a) and (c) before import. d) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328488 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Michael J Gruber mjg@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mjg@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #6 from Michael J Gruber mjg@fedoraproject.org --- Has the original requester lost interest in packaging, or is this moving forward?
alot FTBFS in rawhide and F42 now, and alot's upstream does not seem to be moving to a proper mailcap replacement soon (as there is none - the suggested mimetypes module is none). Getting the dead battery module live would help carry alot over to the to be released F42.
The alternative is dropping alot and suggesting to users to install via pip (which is not the worst suggestion anyways).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #7 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Not so much progress; I'm trying to get the tests into the distribution. A pull request for this has been approved and I've asked for a release (which isn't happening).
See: https://github.com/youknowone/python-deadlib/issues/49
Now I'm a bit worried about the maintenance of the deadlib library from youknowone.
I'm not sure if these tests are a requirement for packaging it in Fedora.
Anyway, please let me know what's still missing for adding this to Fedora, I'm willing to take ownership of maintenance of this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #8 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Okay, I don't expect much to happen from youknowone very soon so I switched to using the sources from github to get the test suite.
spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_... srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_...
I hope you can find some time to review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #9 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Spec URL: https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/meeuw/alot/python-standard-m... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-41-x86_...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #10 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Could someone please tell me if anything needs to be done to get this into Fedora?
alot has been broken for a long time now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Had positively reviewed it. You should be able to request a repository and import it as you are in the packager group.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Reset flag just in case.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Do not use: python3 -m unittest use %{py3_test_envvars} %{python3} -m unittest as this will set the correct environment variables.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #14 from Dick Marinus dick@mrns.nl --- Thanks for your help Benson!
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-42-x86_... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/meeuw/alot/fedora-42-x86_... Description: Standard library mailcap redistribution. "dead battery". Fedora Account System Username: meeuw
I will proceed with requesting the distgit repository as described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/New_Package_Process...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #15 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-standard-mailcap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-04-12 08:00:55
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-d4cb7a3cce (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4
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=2328464
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a
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=2328464
--- Comment #22 from Tomas Tomecek ttomecek@redhat.com --- Thank you for carrying this review towards success, Dick! I just granted you commit access for alot, you are welcome to push changes in there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-ca640b17f4 (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2328464
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-443e40d40a (python-standard-mailcap-3.13.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com