[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2021-06-11 17:10:56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-toml-adapt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 --- Comment #6 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Ben, thank you very much for your help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 --- Comment #5 from Ben Beasley --- Note that the Python 3.10 rebuild is in progress in Rawhide (and currently stalled due to an s390x builder outage); see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/G47SGOYIQLRDTWGOSLSWERZSSHXDEDH5/. If you import your package now, I’m not sure if it will be automatically included in the mass rebuild. If I were importing a new Python package into Rawhide during the rebuild, I would either explicitly build it into the side tag > fedpkg build --target f35-python or avoid building it manually in Rawhide until the Python 3.10 side tag was merged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley ---
Thanks! This looks good. Package approved. Please do see the notes at the top
of the re-review, below.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Notes =
- This should never be required when using pyproject-rpm-macros, so you can
remove it:
rm -rf %{pretty_name}.egg-info
- When you later (after approval and intial import) package a release with
https://github.com/firefly-cpp/toml-adapt/pull/1 included, you can add
install -D -t '%{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1' %{name}.1
to the %install section, and
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
to the %files section.
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1966766-python-toml-adapt/review2/1966766-python-toml-
adapt/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.
[-]: 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 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.
[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
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 --- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley --- PR as requested: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/toml-adapt/pull/1 I plan to finish the review later today. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 Iztok Fister Jr. changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi | |ster.eu)| --- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Dear Ben, many thanks for your quick review. I have already corrected my initial version. Revision is Online: SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-toml-adapt/main/python-toml-adapt.spec SRPMS: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-toml-adapt/raw/main/python-toml-adapt-0.1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Note: In fact, I am the upstream of this package too. Currently, software is far to be completed. My mission is to develop a simple tool for manipulating toml files, so that I can have it as BR and use it in SPEC. In order to conduct serious tests, I need to have it in rawhide. Therefore, I would be extremely happy to have you as a contributor of a basic man page. You can submit a PR on my GitHub repo and I add then man page in package later. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(iztok@iztok-jr-fi
||ster.eu)
--- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
You should BR: python3-devel, even with pyproject-rpm-macros.
- Since you are using generated BR’s, you do not need:
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist lockfile}
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist packaging}
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist pep517}
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist poetry-core}
BuildRequires: %{py3_dist toml}
- The package BR’s make, but it is not actually needed. Please remove:
BuildRequires: make
- This:
%{python3} -m pytest
is better written as
%pytest
which sets some environment variables and ensures the installed package is
used for testing.
- You have disabled the tests. You should enable them. (They do work.)
- You defined
%global pretty_name toml_adapt
but did not use it. You could, if you like, write
%pyproject_save_files %{pretty_name}
or just drop the macro since you would only use it once.
- While section names are case-insensitive,
%builD
would be better written as
%build
- A man page for the CLI tool is not strictly required but is encouraged
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages).
While help2man does not do a good job here, I am happy to contribute a
basic man page in groff_man(7) format if you are willing to maintain it,
or can convince upstream to do so.
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1966766-python-toml-adapt/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.
[-]: 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
(except as noted)
[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
[Bug 1966766] Review Request: python-toml-adapt - Adapt toml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1966766 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |c...@musicinmybrain.net Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
