https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1905174

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905174 [Bug 1905174] F34FailsToInstall: python3-check-manifest

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

--- Comment #2 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- This would be a great candidate for using generated BR’s:

-----

%package -n python3-%{pypi_name} Summary: %{summary}

BuildRequires: python3-devel BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools) BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros

%description -n python3-%{pypi_name} build will invoke the PEP 517 hooks to build a distribution package. It is a simple build tool and does not perform any dependency management.

%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -x test

%prep

-----

It saves you the trouble of manually enumerating, and possibly missing, BR’s (and re-doing it for every upstream update), and it automatically puts in version requirements too.

See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to code from comment #2)

This would be a great candidate for using generated BR’s:

%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -x test

%prep

---

It saves you the trouble of manually enumerating, and possibly missing, BR’s (and re-doing it for every upstream update), and it automatically puts in version requirements too.

See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros for more.

Changed

(In reply to code from comment #3)

For the typing extra, this should have:

%{?python_extras_subpkg:%python_extras_subpkg -n python3-%{pypi_name} -i %{python3_sitelib}/*.egg-info typing}

Details at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ #_python_extras.

Added

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60540015

%changelog * Sun Jan 24 2021 Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch - 0.1.0-2 - Switch to pyproject-rpm-macros (#1910392)

Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-build-0.1.0-2.fc33.src.rp...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

code@musicinmybrain.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch)

--- Comment #5 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Package Review ==============

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

Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

The actual error looks like: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python3.9dist(mypy) = 0.790 needed by python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch

This is because the typing extension requires mypy==0.790. Consider something like this in %prep:

# Loosen exact-version mypy requirement for typing extra: sed -r -i 's/(mypy)==/\1>=/' setup.cfg

Note that only Fedora 34 provides a mypy >= 0.790. If you want to package for older Fedoras, you need to lower or eliminate the minimum version and then test it. For example:

# Drop exact-version mypy requirement for typing extra sed -r -i 's/(mypy)==.*/\1/' setup.cfg

If you do that (and maybe if you don’t) you could change %pyproject_buildrequires -x test to %pyproject_buildrequires -x test,typing and then, in %check:

%{python3} -m mypy %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/{pypi_name}

to verify it works as expected.

- Once you do the above, you will get an error from mypy like:

Module 'importlib' has no attribute 'metadata'

I have filed an upstream bug https://github.com/pypa/build/issues/211 and attached a patch corresponding to my accepted PR https://github.com/pypa/build/pull/213.

- You can build the docs even without the furo theme. %pyproject_buildrequires -x test,typing,doc and in %prep, # Build docs with alternative theme since python-furo is not packaged # (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910798): sed -r -i "s/(html_theme[[:blank:]]*=[[:blank:]]*['])furo'/\1alabaster'/" \ docs/source/conf.py sed -r -i '/^[[:blank:]]*furo[[:blank:]]*$/d' \ setup.cfg docs/requirements.txt then add the appropriate -doc subpackage.

- The %python_provides macro is obsolete. Remove it entirely; or, if you are packaging for Fedora 32, you may replace it with:

# Obsolete after Fedora 32 EOL: %py_provides python3-%{pypi_name}

See:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_pr...

EPEL does need python_provides, but lacks support for the pyproject-rpm-macros, so I know you are not targeting it with this spec file.

- You should run the test suite by adding the following under the %check section:

%tox

For the generated BR’s, you will now need:

%pyproject_buildrequires -t -x typing,doc

to get the BR’s from the tox configuration, and to include tox itself.

You will have to skip one test. I am honestly not sure what is going on here.

# _________________ test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip __________________ # [gw2] linux -- Python 3.9.1 /usr/bin/python3 # # tmp_path = PosixPath('/tmp/pytest-of-mockbuild/pytest-0/popen-gw2/test_create_isolated_build_hos0') # capfd = <_pytest.capture.CaptureFixture object at 0x7fea79428670> # mocker = <pytest_mock.plugin.MockerFixture object at 0x7fea79428490> # # @pytest.mark.isolated # def test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip(tmp_path, capfd, mocker): # mocker.patch.object(build.env, 'pip', None) # expected = {'pip', 'greenlet', 'readline', 'cffi'} if platform.python_implementation() == 'PyPy' else {'pip'} # # with build.env.IsolatedEnvBuilder() as isolated_env: # cmd = [isolated_env.executable, '-m', 'pip', 'list', '--format', 'json'] # packages = {p['name'] for p in json.loads(subprocess.check_output(cmd, universal_newlines=True))} # > assert packages == expected # E AssertionError: assert {'build', 'pip'} == {'pip'} # E Extra items in the left set: # E 'build' # E Use -v to get the full diff # # tests/test_env.py:57: AssertionError export PYTEST_ADDOPTS='-k "not test_create_isolated_build_host_with_no_pip"'

===== 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", "*No copyright* Expat License". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/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.

(However, there is more documentation that *could* be built.)

[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

(except as otherwise noted)

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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

(except as otherwise noted)

[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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-build , python3-build+typing [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR = mock-2.8-1.fc33)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 2.8 INFO: Mock Version: 2.8 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk install /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm /home/reviewer/1910392-python-build/results/python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm python3-build+typing-0.1.0-2.fc34.noarch.rpm python-build-0.1.0-2.fc34.src.rpm python3-build.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/build/py.typed python3-build.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyproject-build python3-build+typing.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage -> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage python3-build+typing.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage python3-build+typing.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pypa/build/archive/0.1.0/build-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : caec66a086a3fdad0c03b36ea82598c071b5c1a98c20d499ef9ae81540ff2463 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : caec66a086a3fdad0c03b36ea82598c071b5c1a98c20d499ef9ae81540ff2463

Requires -------- python3-build (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.9dist(packaging) python3.9dist(pep517) python3.9dist(setuptools) python3.9dist(toml)

python3-build+typing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-build python3.9dist(mypy) python3.9dist(setuptools) python3.9dist(typing-extensions)

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

python3-build+typing: python-build+typing python3-build+typing python3.9-build+typing python3.9dist(build[typing]) python3dist(build[typing])

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1910392 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Java, R, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

--- Comment #7 from code@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1751328 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1751328&action=edit python-build-0.1.0-mypy-importlib-metadata.patch

Patch for mypy/typing issue

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Reopened |

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch)

--- Comment #10 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Are you still planning to package this?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

--- Comment #12 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras/...

When the submitter of a review ticket has not responded to comments for one month

Last "response" is 2021-02-27.

a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon.

That was technically at 2021-06-11.

If there is no response within one week, the ticket is closed

We are there. I won't close this just yet, but Lumír if you sumbit another review request for this, feel free to mark this one as a duplicate.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910392

Fabian Affolter mail@fabian-affolter.ch changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) |