https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 --- Comment #33 from John Snow <jsnow@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Maxwell G from comment #31) > This looks good! Feel free to cut a new release. > OK, will do. Might take a few days to get approvals, but there's nothing drastic on the table. Thanks for your time and attention! Apologies for stumbling a little blindly into this. I was overwhelmed. > Note that the tests fail with > > ``` > + avocado --config avocado.cfg run tests/protocol.py > Could not resolve references: tests/protocol.py > ``` > > on f36, presumably due to the outdated avocado version. I didn't build it on > f35, but I assume the same thing would happen there. We have three options > to deal with this: > > 1. Only package this for f37 and f38/rawhide. > 2. Disable tests on f35 and f36 and only run %pyproject_check_import. > 3. Create a non-modular avocado compat package. > Yeah, I assume it's because I require >= 90.0 for avocado. They added new asyncio test-running features especially for me around that version. I'm not keenly aware of precisely how it breaks otherwise - upstream I test on both v90 and "whatever the latest version is". (Aside: I use pipenv upstream to test against a frozen set of dependencies that I deemed to be our oldest supported. Is there a better way? pipenv is not really designed for this task and it's a bit cumbersome to use in that manner. Specifically, surgically updating exactly one dependency without updating others is difficult. I wish pip had an --oldest-possible flag to tweak the resolver...) I think that with the normal update policy, it might be too late to update avocado on f36 (afaiui) ... I think it's okay to just let this package be f37 and beyond. QEMU 7.2 is probably f38 material, though Cole would know best there. I assume f37 will be QEMU 7.1 (which still "vendors"* this library and will cut a final release this month or early next.) (We probably don't need to worry about QEMU 7.2 being packaged for f36 or any derivative thereof. I think. Maybe there are other considerations for RHEL or CentOS, but that's not our problem here today.) > If you change your mind about the qmp-tui thing, here's how you'd split it > into a subpackage: > > ``` > %package -n python3-qemu-qmp-tui > Summary: Summary here > Requires: python3-qemu-qmp = %{version}-%{release} > Requires: python3dist(urwid) > Requires: python3dist(pygments) > Requires: python3dist(urwid) > > %description -n python3-qemu-qmp-tui %_description > > Subpackage specific description here > > > [...] > > %files -n python3-qemu-qmp-tui > # The licenses do not need to be included in this subpackage, > # as it directly depends on the base package which includes them. > %{_bindir}/qmp-tui > ``` Thanks, I'll stash that for my notes. I don't think I'll change my mind for this first release, but it'll be useful to have on hand for v0.1.0. I promise I'll work to eliminate this weirdness ASAP. (qmp-tui will hopefully just replace qmp-shell entirely, but it's not ready to do so yet and isn't feature complete.) Thanks to Miro for his addendum as well. > > --- > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > Note: Using prebuilt packages > [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", "GNU Library General Public License, > Version 2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* > GNU General Public License, Version 2 GNU Library General Public > License v2 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or > later". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck > in /home/gotmax/Sync/git- > repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/python-qemu-qmp/python-qemu- > qmp/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [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. > [x]: 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 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: > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > [-]: 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-qemu-qmp > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [-]: 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]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > [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). > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://people.redhat.com/~jsnow/keys/ > FAEB9711A12CF475812F18F288A9064D183561EB.txt : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 5df19d762b53e03e0058f6de8c841e96e950cea5699e48ec2593979ebe5c0da5 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 5df19d762b53e03e0058f6de8c841e96e950cea5699e48ec2593979ebe5c0da5 > https://people.redhat.com/~jsnow/qemu.qmp-0.0.2.dev14+g7f9a044.tar.gz.asc : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 27b5918a7e43cc2eb095aa1e150996a113e26e71111499fb269a0e48d58826a2 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 27b5918a7e43cc2eb095aa1e150996a113e26e71111499fb269a0e48d58826a2 > https://people.redhat.com/~jsnow/qemu.qmp-0.0.2.dev14+g7f9a044.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a5980b9ca171ec77d7828c744dcec82eb587f4da8ecd69f01cd03f005ef9c2b2 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a5980b9ca171ec77d7828c744dcec82eb587f4da8ecd69f01cd03f005ef9c2b2 > > > Requires > -------- > python3-qemu-qmp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) > > python-qemu-qmp-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > > > > Provides > -------- > python3-qemu-qmp: > python-qemu-qmp > python3-qemu-qmp > python3.11-qemu-qmp > python3.11dist(qemu-qmp) > python3dist(qemu-qmp) > > python-qemu-qmp-doc: > python-qemu-qmp-doc > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -prn python-qemu-qmp > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python > Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, Java, PHP, > Ocaml > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH [*] This library came from qemu.git, so it's not quite technically being vendored. I rewrote it in-tree, then forked it out. I'm in the process of modifying our configure/build system to just pull from PyPI when it can, but to tolerate offline builds and rely on system packages for mock builds. When we're happy with that, I'll axe the in-tree version. I'm planning this for 7.2. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112474 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
