I am seeking an FPC exemption from the normal package review process for a collection of packages that make up a tool known as "colcon" [1].
Colcon currently consists of 27 Python 3 packages. I have been maintaining those packages in a COPR [2] while I worked to bring the necessary python36-* packages to EPEL 7, but that process is nearing completion, with the remaining packages currently in epel-testing [3][4].
python36-*
Each of the packages are very similar. Only the colcon_core package installs an executable, and only a handful install anything outside of %{python3_sitelib}. Nearly all run tests via pytest.
colcon_core
%{python3_sitelib}
Reviewing all 27 packages individually seems a misuse of resources, so I'm seeking review exemption [5] to bring these packages to Fedora and EPEL 7. I'm more than happy to submit a formal review for some of them if that is desired.
Thanks!
[1] https://colcon.readthedocs.io/en/released/ [2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/cottsay/colcon/ [3] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-8c7dc8caa9 STABLE [4] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-083a2bc23e STABLE [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure
Python source packages in Fedora are supposed to be called python-colon-output. I've checked the copr and that appears to be the case here.
Can we get some of the packages (~3) reviewed first and only grant the exception based on the similarity?
Example specs for reference:
https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/cottsay/colcon/python-colcon-argcomplete.git/tree/python-colcon-argcomplete.spec https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/cottsay/colcon/python-colcon-defaults.git/tree/python-colcon-defaults.spec https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/cottsay/colcon/python-colcon-python-setup-py.git/tree/python-colcon-python-setup-py.spec https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/cottsay/colcon/python-colcon-zsh.git/tree/python-colcon-zsh.spec
They indeed look fairly simple and almost identical.
Thanks, @churchyard!
Yes - My fault - I should have used the actual source package names in that list. EDIT: I updated the list in the description for this issue for clarity.
Of course. I opened three reviews for the most unique among the packages. Two of them install files outside of %{python3_sitelib}, and one that is a metapackage. The rest of the packages are nearly identical.
Package are fine and approved.
+1 on the exception
Thank you @churchyard and @eclipseo. What is the next step to move this forward?
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue tagged with: meeting
We looked at this at this weeks meeting (https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-05-16/fpc.2019-05-16-16.00.txt):
Metadata Update from @james: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue tagged with: writeup
In other words, you're welcome to proceed with requesting repositories for the rest of the packages. Be sure to pass the --exception flag to bypass the requirement for a review ticket. Let me know if you have any problems.
Thank you @james, @tibbs, and the rest of the committee. I have requested repositories for the 27 packages.
Metadata Update from @ignatenkobrain: - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.