[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-04 11:38:49 --- Comment #10 from Lumír Balhar --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0895e64716 -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Petr Viktorin from comment #6) > The license should be "ISC and MIT", see the LICENSE file. Side note: Packages with combined licenses are required to contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. In this case, I'd say something like: # The entire package is licensed with both licenses, see LICENSE file -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891
Petr Viktorin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Petr Viktorin ---
Thank you!
Package APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Fedora-review Issues:
=
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python2.7 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
(Has a FESCo exception)
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-dns
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
(Expected; this replaces the existing package)
= 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.
[X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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 51200 bytes in 11 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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:
[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).
[X]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #7 from Lumír Balhar --- License fixed and spec/srpm reuploaded. python3-dns updated here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dns/pull-request/6 -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #6 from Petr Viktorin --- The license should be "ISC and MIT", see the LICENSE file. Looks good otherwise. Same gors for python3-dns, should I open a bug for it? -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pvikt...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pvikt...@redhat.com 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891
--- Comment #5 from Lumír Balhar ---
> > Patch0: unicode_label_escapify.patch
> > Patch1: collections_abc.patch
> > Patch2: base64.patch
> > Patch3: switch_to_python_cryptography.patch
>
> It might be a good idea to shortly explain what do the patches do.
>
> For example collections_abc.patch and base64.patch seem useless on Python 2.
These two removed.
> Similarly, switch_to_python_cryptography.patch seems like moot because there
> is no python2-cryptography on Fedora 33.
python2-dns has no DNSSEC support but it's still better to depend on
cryptography than cryptodomex.
>
> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{py_package_name}
> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info
>
> Consider adding trailing slashes to assert those are directories.
Done.
--
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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- I don't insist. -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #3 from Lumír Balhar --- Well, my intention was to keep this package as similar as possible to not introduce any breakage during the split but if you insist on the mentioned changes, I can definitely implement them. -- 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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok ---
> Disable dependency generator until it has test code
What does "until it has test code" mean?
> Patch0: unicode_label_escapify.patch
> Patch1: collections_abc.patch
> Patch2: base64.patch
> Patch3: switch_to_python_cryptography.patch
It might be a good idea to shortly explain what do the patches do.
For example collections_abc.patch and base64.patch seem useless on Python 2.
Similarly, switch_to_python_cryptography.patch seems like moot because there is
no python2-cryptography on Fedora 33.
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{py_package_name}
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info
Consider adding trailing slashes to assert those are directories.
--
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
[Bug 1859891] Review Request: python2-dns - DNS toolkit for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859891 --- Comment #1 from Lumír Balhar --- releng issue: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9622 -- 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
