https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Bug ID: 2121759 Summary: Review Request:python-reactivex - ReactiveX (Rx) for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: steve.traylen@cern.ch QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-reactivex/python-reactivex.... SRPM URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-reactivex/python-reactivex-... Description: ReactiveX (Rx) for Python Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2117384
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117384 [Bug 2117384] Review Request: python-influxdb-client - client library for the InfluxDB 2.0 and 1.8+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |troy@troycurtisjr.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |troy@troycurtisjr.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer | |n.ch)
--- Comment #1 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - The linked spec file looks like it is an older version - The changelog entry is for 1.32.0, but the version field and package is for 4.0.4 - The LICENSE file should be packaged with %license - py3_check_import should be pyproject_check_import since that is the latest suggested macro - Something looks off with the packages installer, no version in dist info: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/reactivex-0.0.0.dist-info/ This also seems to provide provides of "python3.11dist(reactivex) = 0" - The description in the srpm spec talks like this is the client for InfluxDB instead of ReactiveX ;) - Ideally the pytest build time req should be present in pyproject.toml so that it can be picked up by the build-time dependency generator:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatica...
===== 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 467 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2121759-python- reactivex/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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. [!]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: 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. [?]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxPY/archive/v4.0.4/RxPy-4.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4222862253bfc7c34baefffc8761fea7b66446576791450cacb65584d9c92fb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4222862253bfc7c34baefffc8761fea7b66446576791450cacb65584d9c92fb8
Requires -------- python3-reactivex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(typing-extensions) < 5~~ with python3.11dist(typing-extensions) >= 4.1.1) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-reactivex: python-reactivex python3-reactivex python3.11-reactivex python3.11dist(reactivex) python3dist(reactivex)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2121759-python-reactivex/srpm/python-reactivex.spec 2022-12-25 23:12:23.434889264 -0500 +++ /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2121759-python-reactivex/srpm-unpacked/python-reactivex.spec 2022-08-26 10:10:01.000000000 -0400 @@ -12,12 +12,9 @@
# Test dependencies: -BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest) +BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
%global _description\ -ReactiveX for Python (RxPY) is a library for composing asynchronous and event-based\ -programs using observable sequences and pipable query operators in Python. Using Rx,\ -developers represent asynchronous data streams with Observables, query asynchronous data\ -streams using operators, and parameterize concurrency in data/event streams using\ -Schedulers. +Use this client library with InfluxDB 2.x and InfluxDB 1.8+. For connecting\ +to InfluxDB 1.7 or earlier instances, use the python-influxdb package.\
%description %_description @@ -47,4 +44,5 @@ %check %pytest +%py3_check_import reactivex
@@ -54,4 +52,9 @@
%changelog -* Fri Aug 26 2022 Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch - 4.0.4-1 -- Inital Package +* Fri Aug 26 2022 Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch - 1.32.0-1 +- Update 1.32.0 +- Use upstream gittag as source to bring in tests + +* Wed Aug 10 2022 Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch - 1.31.0-1 +- Initial Package +
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2121759 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Python Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, fonts, Ocaml, R, PHP, C/C++, Java, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- Thanks. I'll take a look in next few days.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(steve.traylen@cer | |n.ch) |
--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- New packages.
Everything addressed I believe except for the build test requirements. Comments below.
Spec URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-reactivex/python-reactivex.... SRPM URL: http://straylen.web.cern.ch/straylen/rpms/python-reactivex/python-reactivex-...
- The linked spec file looks like it is an older version - The changelog entry is for 1.32.0, but the version field and package is for 4.0.4
spec file and changelog both updated.
- The LICENSE file should be packaged with %license
Explicit reference to LICENSE file now added.
- py3_check_import should be pyproject_check_import since that is the latest suggested macro
Corrected to pyproject macro
- Something looks off with the packages installer, no version in dist info: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/reactivex-0.0.0.dist-info/ This also seems to provide provides of "python3.11dist(reactivex) = 0"
Okay seems the github tag release is not complete with no version number. I switched to using the PyPi source now with just the tests from git tag. Seems to have done the job.
- The description in the srpm spec talks like this is the client for InfluxDB instead of ReactiveX ;)
Yep - corrected.
- Ideally the pytest build time req should be present in pyproject.toml so that it can be picked up by the build-time dependency generator:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Automatica...
There is a pyproject section "[tool.poetry.dev-dependencies]" that contains pytest. I do not seem to be able to activate this section with "%generate_buildrequires -x dev" or something?
Have left it as is.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5204095 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/fedora-review-212...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- Ah, yeah I see what you mean. I think actually I was probably wrong about the expectation of pytest being in auto detected as a build dep. Since it is a dev dep, not really a build dep (in the context of this project, even if it is for the Fedora package), it doesn't get picked up so I think that it good to leave as is.
On the version, needing both tarballs is a bit strange. Perhaps it would be a little more streamlined to just prep the source using this snippet I pulled from the github workflows:
RX_VERSION=$(dunamai from any --no-metadata --style pep440) poetry version $RX_VERSION echo "__version__ = "$RX_VERSION"" > reactivex/_version.py
Where you just use the %{version} macro in for RX_VERSION.
The pyproject changes look good.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
--- Comment #6 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch ---
On the version, needing both tarballs is a bit strange
I prefer the two sources to executing something. Probably more future proof to changes. I've used it on quite a few other packages to just add the tests and some times LICENSE that were excluded from the release. In this case the tag is not actually the release so seems to me to be the wrong thing to use.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Troy Curtis troy@troycurtisjr.com --- I suppose either way is imperfect. The two sources method just seems more likely to mix code which might not actually be the same release, as it relies mostly on the intention/convention versus any explicit relationship. Presumably upstream has the the right automation in place to make sure tarballs in the two places are the same thing. Regardless, the package looks good. Approved! Sorry for taking so long, I forgot this was back in my court!
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 License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 379 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/troycurtisjr/working/oss/fedora/reviews/2121759-python- reactivex/licensecheck.txt [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [-]: 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. The package requires a newer typing-extensions (>4.1.1) than I have on my f36 machine. [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. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-reactivex-4.0.4-2.fc38.noarch.rpm python-reactivex-4.0.4-2.fc38.src.rpm ==================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdzfo08gy')] checks: 31, packages: 2
===================================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ====================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxPY/archive/v4.0.4/RxPy-4.0.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4222862253bfc7c34baefffc8761fea7b66446576791450cacb65584d9c92fb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4222862253bfc7c34baefffc8761fea7b66446576791450cacb65584d9c92fb8 https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/r/reactivex/reactivex-4.0.4.t... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e912e6591022ab9176df8348a653fe8c8fa7a301f26f9931c9d8c78a650e04e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e912e6591022ab9176df8348a653fe8c8fa7a301f26f9931c9d8c78a650e04e8
Requires -------- python3-reactivex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(typing-extensions) < 5~~ with python3.11dist(typing-extensions) >= 4.1.1) python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-reactivex: python-reactivex python3-reactivex python3.11-reactivex python3.11dist(reactivex) python3dist(reactivex)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 2121759 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Haskell, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
--- Comment #8 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- Thanks for the review - I'm and not fast at all at getting to this stuff.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-reactivex
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121759
Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-10 08:50:14
--- Comment #10 from Steve Traylen steve.traylen@cern.ch --- in rawhide.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com