https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1888351

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888351 [Bug 1888351] Review Request: python-volvooncall - Communicate with Volco On Call

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender andymenderunix@gmail.com --- Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the Sphinx HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/ I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be bundled with non-font packages.

Full review below: Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed

Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ - 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. Note: License file license.rst.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Review: I think this is a RestructuredText template file, correct? The warning can probably be ignored.

===== 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", "Expat License". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-hbmqtt/python- hbmqtt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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 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. [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the Sphinx HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/ I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be bundled with non-font packages. [-]: 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-hbmqtt Review: This is usually not necessary, but adding a Requires: python3-%{pypi_name} = %{version}-%{release} line to the -doc subpackage might be useful [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. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-hbmqtt-doc-0.9.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-hbmqtt-0.9.6-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_pub python3-hbmqtt.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hbmqtt_sub 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name python3-hbmqtt (none): E: no installed packages by name python-hbmqtt-doc 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/h/hbmqtt/hbmqtt-0.9.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6764d3c7cf6d056238c04709c23dbb72e2b0227495efd871c2f1da10a4472cd9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6764d3c7cf6d056238c04709c23dbb72e2b0227495efd871c2f1da10a4472cd9

Requires -------- python3-hbmqtt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(docopt) python3.9dist(passlib) python3.9dist(pyyaml) python3.9dist(setuptools) python3.9dist(transitions) python3.9dist(websockets)

python-hbmqtt-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides -------- python3-hbmqtt: python-hbmqtt python3-hbmqtt python3.9-hbmqtt python3.9dist(hbmqtt) python3dist(hbmqtt)

python-hbmqtt-doc: python-hbmqtt-doc

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)

Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files Review: This is problematic. The package adds fonts as part of the Sphinx HTML docs to usr/share/doc/python-hbmqtt-doc/html/_static/fonts/ I'm afraid these tightly coupled with the docs and fonts should not be bundled with non-font packages.

Only way to avoid this is to not ship the docs. I'm wondering why this doesn't happen for other packages which depends sphinx-rtd-theme as the config for the docs looks pretty "standard".

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl

--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl ---

Looks good, but there is a problem with the -doc package: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.

Something changed recently in sphinx (not don't know the details, but there was a thread on fedora-devel about the install losing almost a gigabyte, that was apparently caused by that). I rebuilt the package now and python-hbmqtt-doc has no font files. So that issue seems to have resolved itself ;)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-hbmqtt

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

--- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Hmm, but that leaves us with an unretired package in the repo. Can you do 'fedpkg retire' ?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888345

Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Flags|fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) | Blocks|1269538 (IoT), 1888351, |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |1892891 | Assignee|andymenderunix@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed|2021-08-08 20:36:45 |2022-09-17 14:57:34

--- Comment #10 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@proton.me --- Closing as DEADREVIEW Filed https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11036

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888351 [Bug 1888351] Review Request: python-volvooncall - Communicate with Volvo On Call https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892891 [Bug 1892891] F34FailsToInstall: python3-volvooncall