[Bug 2279792] New: Review Request: python-application-properties - A simple, easy to use, unified manner of accessing program properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Bug ID: 2279792 Summary: Review Request: python-application-properties - A simple, easy to use, unified manner of accessing program properties Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gwync@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a... SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a...
Description: The application_properties package was born out of necessity. During the creation of the PyMarkdown project, there was a distinct need for a configuration subsystem that was able to handle more complex configuration scenarios.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- 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=2279792
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2279791
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279791 [Bug 2279791] Review Request: python-pymarkdownlnt - A GitHub Flavored Markdown compliant Markdown linter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment|0 |updated
--- Comment #0 has been edited ---
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a... SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a...
Description: The application_properties package was born out of necessity. During the creation of the PyMarkdown project, there was a distinct need for a configuration subsystem that was able to handle more complex configuration scenarios.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |Tom.Rix@amd.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |Tom.Rix@amd.com Flags| |needinfo?(gwync@protonmail. | |com)
--- Comment #2 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Try building this on rawhide I believe the '-t' in generate build requires is hanging up the build, remove it and maybe the %tox
%check should have %pyproject_check_import
%changelog should be for your own convenience. %autochangelog
%release should be for your own convience %autorelease
Source0: should be changed based on the github/url, from https://github.com/jackdewinter/application_properties/archive/refs/tags/v0....
multiple %description's can be collapsed by use
%global _descrition %expand: <your text> }
%description %_description
I don't think the python_provide is needed, is it ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(gwync@protonmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Thank you! I couldn't get the description change to work. I made a number of other modifications. I left release and changelog manual because I generally prefer it that way.
SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a... SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/jackdewi | |nter/application_properties Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8868367 (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=2279792
--- Comment #5 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- A few more things.
Source0: https://github.com/jackdewinter/application_properties/archive/refs/tags/v%%... change to Source0: %{url}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
If not needed, remove #iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf-8 README.md > README.md.conv && mv -f README.md.conv README.md
In the %check section, should run %pytest
I had to do this in the prep
# disable coverage pytest options, only care if they pass/fail. sed -i -e 's@pytest@nopytest@' setup.cfg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Done. SRPM:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a... SPEC:https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-application-properties/python-a...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2084473 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2084473&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8868367 to 8891708
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8891708 (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=2279792
Tom.Rix@amd.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #9 from Tom.Rix@amd.com --- Looks good, approved.
===== 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". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /sfs/fedora-review/review-python-application- properties/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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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 8201 bytes in 1 files. [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: [-]: 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]: 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-application-properties-0.8.2-3.fc43.noarch.rpm python-application-properties-0.8.2-3.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcdytpm38')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python3-application-properties.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/application_properties/.external-package 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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-application-properties.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/application_properties/.external-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jackdewinter/application_properties/archive/refs/tags/v0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f2675cc93f76c91f9c058a2f5f12fc3b35eb30ed48e7b1f4a3cffce083d4998 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f2675cc93f76c91f9c058a2f5f12fc3b35eb30ed48e7b1f4a3cffce083d4998
Requires -------- python3-application-properties (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.13dist(pyyaml) python3.13dist(tomli) python3.13dist(typing-extensions) python3dist(pyyaml) python3dist(tomli) python3dist(typing-extensions)
Provides -------- python3-application-properties: python-application-properties python3-application-properties python3.13-application-properties python3.13dist(application-properties) python3dist(application-properties)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-application-properties Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, R, fo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #11 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-application-properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-5797f93857 (python-application-properties-0.8.2-3.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5797f93857
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279792
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-5797f93857 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-5797f93857 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-5797f93857
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=2279792
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2025-05-17 02:02:00
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-5797f93857 (python-application-properties-0.8.2-3.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com