https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012983 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra | |in.net) | --- Comment #1 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Please replace BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros with BuildRequires: python3-devel which now depends on pyproject-rpm-macros on all releases. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_buildrequire_python3_devel - In this case, you may, if you choose, remove %license LICENSE in the “python3-%{srcname}” package only, since pyproject-rpm-macros properly marks the LICENSE file in the dist-info directory. There are some Python packages for which this still does not work, so if you are going to drop the explicit %license line (and there’s no real harm in leaving it in and installing an extra copy of the license file!) you should always check with “rpm -qL -p …”. - It was recently pointed out that Sphinx-generated HTML documentation contains bundled and pre-minified JavaScript that is very difficult to package in strict compliance with the relevant guidelines, and that even if these can be packaged successfully, they should contribute to the License of the -doc subpackage. Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2006555 and the packaging mailing list thread https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ for detailed discussion. At this time, it seems you have two reasonable choices: * The Sphinx-generated PDF documentation is probably acceptable. For the time being, I’ve mostly been switching my existing Sphinx-generated (and Doxygen-generated) documentation subpackages to PDFs rather than removing them altogether. Here’s an example of how that can be done: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-asyncpg/c/5596d0e7ac63b4c685cd73a991f0e5266759abe4?branch=rawhide If this is what you want to do, I’m happy to help get it working on your package. * You could remove refrain from packaging the Sphinx documentation entirely—a loss, in my opinion, but an easy and reasonable solution. - Version 3.4.0 was released 13 days ago. Is there any reason not to update? - Normally the patch to remove mock should be suggested upstream, conditionally if upstream needs to support old Python versions. This is still possible, but there are a few annoyances: * Upstream needs (unittest.)mock.AsyncMock, which is only in Python 3.8+, but supports Python 3.6; so for Python 3.6 and 3.7 they still need mock and asyncmock—but only for the unit tests, not for the system tests, I think. This complicates the necessary patch a bit. * Upstream has a contributing process in which you are required to file an issue and discuss changes before offering a PR. This is doable, although it feels designed to dissuade casual contributions. I started a patch that would conditionalize the test dependencies in noxfile.py, but didn’t feel like going through that much work to try to sell upstream on a change that they won’t benefit from. If you feel the same, how about just adding a comment like: # Use unittest.mock instead of PyPI mock # (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecatePythonMock). # # This simple patch cannot be submitted upstream because they support # Python 3.6 and 3.7, but use AsyncMock, which was introduced to # unittest.mock in Python 3.8. - The metapackage for the [libcst] extra is missing. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonExtras#Extras_metapackages. Add, somewhere after the base package’s %description (or later): %pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{srcname} libcst - I think several more text documentation files ought to be packaged alongside README.rst and CHANGELOG.md. You could keep these all in the python3-%{srcname} subpackage, or move them all to the -doc subpackage: CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md CONTRIBUTING.rst SECURITY.md UPGRADING.md Additionally, I think it would make sense to add %doc samples to the -doc subpackage. ===== 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/2012983-python-google-cloud- bigquery-datatransfer/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/google(python3-google-cloud-spanner, python3-google-cloud- core, python3-google-cloud-bigquery, python3-google-cloud-appengine- admin, python3-google-resumable-media, python3-protobuf, python3-google-cloud-os-config, python3-google-cloud-storage, python3-google-api-core, python3-google-cloud-kms, python3-google- cloud-container, python3-googleapis-common-protos, python3-google- cloud-firestore, python3-google-cloud-org-policy, python3-google- cloud-private-ca, python3-google-cloud-billing, python3-google-cloud- api-gateway, python3-google-cloud-bigtable, python3-google-cloud- access-context-manager, python3-google-cloud-apigee-connect, python3-google-cloud-redis, python3-google-cloud-functions, python3-grpc-google-iam-v1, python3-google-cloud-iam, python3-google- cloud-billing-budgets, python3-google-cloud-build, python3-google- cloud-automl, python3-google-cloud-asset, python3-google-cloud-access- approval), /usr/lib/python3.10/site- packages/google/cloud(python3-google-cloud-spanner, python3-google- cloud-core, python3-google-cloud-bigquery, python3-google-cloud- appengine-admin, python3-google-cloud-os-config, python3-google-cloud- storage, python3-google-cloud-kms, python3-google-cloud-container, python3-google-cloud-firestore, python3-google-cloud-org-policy, python3-google-cloud-private-ca, python3-google-cloud-billing, python3-google-cloud-api-gateway, python3-google-cloud-bigtable, python3-google-cloud-apigee-connect, python3-google-cloud-redis, python3-google-cloud-functions, python3-google-cloud-iam, python3-google-cloud-billing-budgets, python3-google-cloud-build, python3-google-cloud-automl, python3-google-cloud-asset, python3-google-cloud-access-approval) Standard google namespace package handling. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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 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 (except as noted) [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer [x]: Package functions as described. (based on passing tests) [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-3.3.4-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc-3.3.4-1.fc36.noarch.rpm python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-3.3.4-1.fc36.src.rpm python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-mock.patch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/googleapis/python-bigquery-datatransfer/archive/v3.3.4/python-bigquery-datatransfer-3.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9d75fcf2456c28e96747e2c739664f4684150c6c97f60672bc6eb2e4537c2c8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9d75fcf2456c28e96747e2c739664f4684150c6c97f60672bc6eb2e4537c2c8 Requires -------- python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.10dist(google-api-core) < 3~~dev0 with python3.10dist(google-api-core) >= 1.26) (python3.10dist(google-api-core[grpc]) < 3~~dev0 with python3.10dist(google-api-core[grpc]) >= 1.26) python(abi) python3.10dist(packaging) python3.10dist(proto-plus) python3.10dist(pytz) python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer: python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer python3.10-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer python3.10dist(google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer) python3dist(google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer) python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc: python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc python3-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc python3.10-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer-doc Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/reviewer/2012983-python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer/srpm/python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer.spec 2021-10-24 21:30:56.677174003 -0400 +++ /home/reviewer/2012983-python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer/srpm-unpacked/python-google-cloud-bigquery-datatransfer.spec 2021-10-11 10:59:09.000000000 -0400 @@ -70,5 +70,4 @@ %pyproject_save_files google -# Remove unnecessary scripts. rm -f %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/fixup_bigquery_datatransfer_v1_keywords.py Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2012983 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, R, C/C++, fonts, PHP, Haskell, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012983 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
