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 1545163

Summary:	Review Request: python-sphinx-click - Sphinx extension that automatically documents click applications
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michal Cyprian <mcyprian>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Miro Hrončok <mhroncok>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	hhorak, mcyprian, mhroncok, package-review
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	mhroncok: fedora-review+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-05-23 15:38:24 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Michal Cyprian 2018-02-14 12:00:32 UTC

Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click.spec
SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description:
sphinx-click is a Sphinx plugin that allows you to automatically extract
documentation from a click-based application and include it in your docs.

This is a build dependency of Pipenv — the officially recommended Python packaging tool from Python.org.

Fedora Account System Username: mcyprian

Successful build in Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcyprian/pipenv/build/715240/

Comment 1 Michal Cyprian 2018-02-14 12:10:09 UTC

SRPM was build for f27 not rawhide, updated files:

Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click.spec
SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.src.rpm

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-02-15 11:44:13 UTC

 - There seems to be an error because of the way you named the description macro:

warning: Macro %sphinx needs whitespace before body

   It considers %{sphinx-click-desc} to be part of a %{sphinx} macro and it causes an error when trying to build in mock.

   Rename you macro to %{desc} for example to avoid this error.

 - License should just be "MIT":

License:        MIT



Package Review
==============

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



===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/python-sphinx-click/review-python-sphinx-
     click/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 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]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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 python2
     -sphinx-click , python3-sphinx-click
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python3-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-click-doc-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.src.rpm
python2-sphinx-click.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C sphinx-click documentation
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT License
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-click-doc/html/objects.inv
python-sphinx-click.src: W: invalid-license MIT License
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Comment 3 Miro Hrončok 2018-02-15 12:05:07 UTC

Is the python2 subpackage needed? Have you consider not packaging it at all?


> # Must do the default python version install last because
> # the scripts in /usr/bin are overwritten with every setup.py install.

Bogus comment, there are no scripts in /usr/bin.


We have sphinx >= 1.5, click >= 5.0 and coverage > 4.3 in all Fedoras, maybe the dependency declarations are needlessly overcomplicated?

Also, does the automatic deps generator work here? Maybe try to use it instead of specific requires. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/740

Comment 4 Michal Cyprian 2018-02-28 16:17:25 UTC

Thank for the review Miro. I removed Python 2 subpackage, you are right that it is not needed at least for Pipenv, I also simplified requirements definition.
Updated files: 
Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click.spec
SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2018-03-01 10:06:50 UTC

Package Review
==============

Not yet approved.

As said before in comment #2, fix the description macro:

    $ rpm -qip python3-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm 
    ...
    Description :
    %{sphinx_click-desc}

    $ rpm -qip python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.src.rpm 
    ...
    Description :
    %{sphinx-click-desc}

Also, some rpmlint problems.


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



===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated".
[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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
     Note: Macros in: python3-sphinx-click (description)
[!]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 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 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]: 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]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python3-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-click-doc-1.0.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
          python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28.src.rpm
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{sphinx_click
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US desc -> disc, desk, descry
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C sphinx-click documentation
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-click-doc/html/objects.inv
python-sphinx-click.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{sphinx
python-sphinx-click.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US desc -> disc, desk, descry
python-sphinx-click.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro %sphinx needs whitespace before body
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.

Please fix those.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C sphinx-click documentation
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/stephenfin/sphinx-click <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
python-sphinx-click-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-click-doc/html/objects.inv
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{sphinx_click
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US desc -> disc, desk, descry
python3-sphinx-click.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/stephenfin/sphinx-click <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Please fix those.

Requires
--------
python-sphinx-click-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python3-sphinx-click (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    python(abi)
    python3dist(pbr)
    python3dist(sphinx)



Provides
--------
python-sphinx-click-doc:
    python-sphinx-click-doc

python3-sphinx-click:
    python3-sphinx-click
    python3.6dist(sphinx-click)
    python3dist(sphinx-click)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/sphinx-click/sphinx-click-1.0.4.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 612a00b497e0434271d2ef808369d627d0002936d66ec21e11c07e79f886fbd5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 612a00b497e0434271d2ef808369d627d0002936d66ec21e11c07e79f886fbd5

Comment 6 Michal Cyprian 2018-03-04 16:40:45 UTC

I haven't realized there was a comment from Robert-André before and I've read only Miro's comment, sorry for that. All the other issues might be fixed now:

Spec URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click.spec
SRPM URL: https://mcyprian.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

The only rpmlint warning is the binary file generated by Sphinx:
/usr/share/doc/python-sphinx-click-doc/html/objects.inv

Similar file is present also in other rpm using Sphinx documentation. Is this really an issue?

Comment 7 Miro Hrončok 2018-03-04 22:35:01 UTC

APPROVED.

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-03-06 17:24:24 UTC

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-click. You may commit to the branch "f28" in about 10 minutes.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2018-03-07 09:14:11 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7f3409174f

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2018-03-07 09:14:21 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0e75ce7192

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2018-03-07 15:36:06 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0e75ce7192

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2018-03-08 15:27:13 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7f3409174f

Comment 13 Miro Hrončok 2018-05-05 13:40:23 UTC

This is ON_QA for 2 months now. Please push the updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2018-05-23 15:38:24 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2018-05-23 15:58:09 UTC

python-sphinx-click-1.0.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.