[Bug 2136996] New: Review Request: python-zoidberg - A Flux-Coordinate Independent (FCI) Grid Generator for BOUT++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
Bug ID: 2136996 Summary: Review Request: python-zoidberg - A Flux-Coordinate Independent (FCI) Grid Generator for BOUT++ Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: david08741@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r... Description: A Flux-Coordinate Independent (FCI) Grid Generator for BOUT++ Fedora Account System Username: davidsch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
david08741@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from david08741@gmail.com --- The license in the setup.cfg seems wrong, I'll check with upstream whether it is LGPL or GPL.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trpost@rocketmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- Ops!
I missed this ticket and opened another one similar (rhbz2178285). David, if you want to go on with this one i'll close mine ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
--- Comment #3 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- *** Bug 2178285 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |trpost@rocketmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
--- Comment #4 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: =======
- Dist tag is present (Included in defined macro) - License is a LGPL-3.0-or-later
===== 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", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/2136996-python-zoidberg/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/zoidberg(python3-bout++), /usr/lib/python3.11/site- packages/zoidberg/__pycache__(python3-bout++) [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 [-]: 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 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]: 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 [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]: 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. [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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== 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-zoidberg-0.1.1-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-zoidberg-0.1.1-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqs52xgi_')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.8 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 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/z/zoidberg/zoidberg-0.1.1.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c1d64d9fd435f3dc4f7a8f179304a68898ad34f25a15a7a275ff4d53457513c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c1d64d9fd435f3dc4f7a8f179304a68898ad34f25a15a7a275ff4d53457513c
Requires -------- python3-zoidberg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(matplotlib) >= 3.1 with python3.11dist(matplotlib) < 4) (python3.11dist(netcdf4) >= 1.4 with python3.11dist(netcdf4) < 2) (python3.11dist(numpy) >= 1.14 with python3.11dist(numpy) < 2) (python3.11dist(scipy) >= 1 with python3.11dist(scipy) < 2) (python3.11dist(sympy) >= 1.7 with python3.11dist(sympy) < 2) python(abi) python3.11dist(boututils)
Provides -------- python3-zoidberg: python-zoidberg python3-zoidberg python3.11-zoidberg python3.11dist(zoidberg) python3dist(zoidberg)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 2136996 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Perl, R, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
--- Comment #5 from david08741@gmail.com --- I will update the license.
But I do not find why the disttag is an issue, according to [1] it seems mandatory.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
--- Comment #6 from david08741@gmail.com --- Updated license:
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://boutproject.github.i | |o
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5725968 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Antonio T. sagitter trpost@rocketmail.com --- (In reply to david08741 from comment #5)
I will update the license.
But I do not find why the disttag is an issue, according to [1] it seems mandatory.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/
It's not an issue, it is correct. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
--- 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-zoidberg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136996
david08741@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2024-01-08 14:43:03
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com