[Bug 2179414] New: Review Request: python-scikit-build-core - Build backend for CMake based projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Bug ID: 2179414 Summary: Review Request: python-scikit-build-core - Build backend for CMake based projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: redhat@lecris.me QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... Description: Build backend for CMake based projects Fedora Account System Username: lecris
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |vitaly@easycoding.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |vitaly@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- I will review this package and sponsor you to Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
URL: %{forgeurl} Source0: %{forgesource}
Please switch to %{pypi_source}.
Don't forget to add this:
%global pypi_name scikit-build-core
Name: python-scikit-build-core
Name: python-%{pypi_source}
%package -n python3-scikit-build-core
python3-%{pypi_source}
%files -n python3-scikit-build-core -f %{pyproject_files}
%files -n python3-%{pypi_source} -f %{pyproject_files}
%license
Missing license file here:
%license LICENSE
Also please add docs: %doc README.md
Release: 1%{?dist}
If you use %autochangelog, use this:
Release: %autorelease
License: ASL 2.0
You must use SPDX: License: Apache-2.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- The upstream tarball name contains underscore, so please use this:
%global pypi_name scikit_build_core ... Name: python-scikit-build-core ... %package -n python3-scikit-build-core ... %files -n python3-scikit-build-core -f %{pyproject_files} ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #4 from Cristian Le redhat@lecris.me --- Thanks for the review: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lecris/fedora-scikit-build-core/buil...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org ---
Name: python-%{pypi_name}
Name: python-scikit-build-core
Requires: python3dist(pyproject-metadata) Requires: python3dist(pathspec)
Please remove these lines. rpmbuild will handle all dependencies automatically.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #6 from Cristian Le redhat@lecris.me --- Moved those dependencies to `Recommends` since those are in practice still needed. They are marked as "optional" dependencies and are not picked up as dependencies for populating `Requires`, but in practice they should be included.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lecris/fedora-scikit-buil... Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lecris/fedora-scikit-build-core/buil...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/scikit-b | |uild/scikit-build-core
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5683501 (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=2179414
--- Comment #8 from Cristian Le redhat@lecris.me --- Incompatible with F37 because pytest changes were not backported.
``` [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. ```
Is this relevant when built via copr?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #9 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 133 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/python-scikit-build-core/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. [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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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). [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]: 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).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-scikit-build-core-0.2.2-1.fc39.noarch.rpm python-scikit-build-core-0.2.2-1.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/tmpcw7hjdeh')] checks: 31, packages: 2
python3-scikit-build-core.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/setuptools/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/_compat/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/file_api/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/file_api/model/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/resources/find_python/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/settings/__init__.py 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 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
python3-scikit-build-core.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/setuptools/__init__.py /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/_compat/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/file_api/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/file_api/model/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/resources/find_python/__init__.py:/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/scikit_build_core/settings/__init__.py 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/scikit_build_core/scikit_bu... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4dca91c0c6a00a63bd287925f661f275c720c840dfebb71eea4ba551b456e2aa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4dca91c0c6a00a63bd287925f661f275c720c840dfebb71eea4ba551b456e2aa
Requires -------- python3-scikit-build-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(packaging)
Provides -------- python3-scikit-build-core: python-scikit-build-core python3-scikit-build-core python3.11-scikit-build-core python3.11dist(scikit-build-core) python3dist(scikit-build-core)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-scikit-build-core --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, Java, fonts, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Vitaly Zaitsev vitaly@easycoding.org --- Added your FAS account to the packagers group. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #11 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-scikit-build-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- See also https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-scikit-build-core/pull-request/3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179414
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-04-02 00:15:39
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-85fb81543e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com