Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1392089
Summary: | Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Robinson <pbrobinson> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Athos Ribeiro <athoscribeiro> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | athoscribeiro, mail, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | athoscribeiro:
fedora-review?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-12-21 04:22:24 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1269538, 1392090 |
Description
Peter Robinson
2016-11-04 19:32:51 UTC
Would you use the template on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file? It would really improve readability with all those macros set there. As pointed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist , %python_provide macro must be used. Are there any reasons for not running upstream's test suite under %check? I see there's one here https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf/blob/master/test_zeroconf.py Also, are there any reasons for not including the README file under %doc? There are also some missing Requires: *** Bug 1395341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #2) > There are also some missing Requires: Feel free to actually list them explicitly, I'll get back to this next week, I've been dealing with f25 release so that's taken priority. SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-2.fc25.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16708202 Please continue the review or should I get someone else to continue it? Hi Peter, I am sorry for the delay here, I have been travelling in the past few weeks and probably missed the emails on this bug. Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090 We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. I believe the former would be preferred, and if you agree, I would even contact the maintainer and send him a patch to include python2-zeroconf. Else, here is the review of the package: I only found 2 issues here: 1 - the python3-zeroconf owns /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/__pycache__ which belongs to system-python-libs. This issue appears in a few python3 packages when we use wildcards like %{python3_sitelib}/* Since the python3 subpackage would be removed, this should be ignored. 2 - spec file line 2 reads: %define with_tests 0 Guidelines sugest we use %global instead, as you can see in [2]. Note that this is not a must. Other than that, the python2 package would be ready, if that's how you'd like to proceed. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-zeroconf/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define > Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] > > python-zeroconf was reviewed and approved during our review here, but the > maintainer only included a python3-zeroconf package and we do need a > python2-zeroconf for bug 1392090 That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence. > We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to > the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, > remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #8) > > Please, see bug 1401337 and [1] > > > That bug was submitted after this one, this one should have taken precidence. Yes, they probably forgot to check bugzilla for a review request before submitting it... maybe we should have a bot checking for duplicated review requests. > > We can either check if the maintainer is willing to add python2-zeroconf to > > the python-zeroconf package or rename this package to python2-zeroconf, > > remove the python3-zeroconf subpackage and proceed with the review. > > No it needs to be added to the other one. GRRRRRR OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a python2-zeroconf subpackage. > OK. You said (in the other review request) you would address this, so I > suppose I do not need to contact the maintainer to include a > python2-zeroconf subpackage. I will, I've requested co-maintainer, if they don't respond in a reasonable time I'll just push my needed changes anyway. Marking as duplicate even though it should be the other way around. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1401337 *** |