[Bug 2138047] New: Review Request: python-ipuz - Python library for reading and writing ipuz puzzle files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Bug ID: 2138047 Summary: Review Request: python-ipuz - Python library for reading and writing ipuz puzzle files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcavalca@fb.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ipuz/python-ipuz.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ipuz/python-ipuz-1.0-1.fc38....
Description: Python library for reading and writing ipuz puzzle files. The specification for the ipuz file format can be found at: http://www.ipuz.org/. The ipuz file format supports representing various types of puzzles, including crossword, sudoku and word search. This Python library provides validation and wrapping around the puzzle data.
As the puzzle is inherently JSON data it is the application's responsibility to ensure that the JSON satisfies the constraints of the PuzzleKind prior to writing the puzzle. This library provides validation and additional functionality that you might want to use.
Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=93474625
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2138049
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138049 [Bug 2138049] Review Request: crosswords-puzzle-sets-puzzlepull - The Guardian daily cryptic for GNOME Crosswords
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2138486
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138486 [Bug 2138486] Review Request: python-crossword - Python library for handling crossword puzzles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkadlcik@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Hello Davide, thank you for the package.
# The GitHub repo doesn't have tags, this is the commit corresponding to the # 1.0 release in PyPI %global commit 8dae6cff00a8269d7d29b129bc73a0233963bc60
I believe you, but I don't really know how to verify this. The comment is very much appreciated though.
python3-ipuz.noarch: E: description-line-too-long
Can you please re-wrap the description to have at most 80 characters per line?
%files -n python3-%{srcname} -f %{pyproject_files}
What do you think about adding
%doc CHANGELOG.rst
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkadlcik@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com ---
I believe you, but I don't really know how to verify this. The comment is very much appreciated though.
Yeah, it's not great. I guesstimated based on the date of the pypi upload, commit messages, and actual content of it matching.
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ipuz/python-ipuz.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-ipuz/python-ipuz-1.0-1.fc38....
Changelog: - wrap description to 80 chars - add missing doc files to main subpackage - build sphinx docs and ship them in doc subpackage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- I've filed https://github.com/svisser/ipuz/issues/4 to get the version situation sorted out upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com ---
I've filed https://github.com/svisser/ipuz/issues/4 to get the version situation sorted out upstream.
Perfect, thank you very much
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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 51 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkadlcik/2138047-python-ipuz/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. [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 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]: 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]: 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 python3-ipuz [?]: 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: [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 ------- 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: 2
python-ipuz-doc.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized python-ipuz documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/svisser/ipuz/archive/8dae6cff00a8269d7d29b129bc73a0233963... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 938339f46bfbd8413664185f221dddb389e704010da2f11c7516816ec3411e69 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 938339f46bfbd8413664185f221dddb389e704010da2f11c7516816ec3411e69
Requires -------- python3-ipuz (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
python-ipuz-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-ipuz: python-ipuz python3-ipuz python3.11-ipuz python3.11dist(ipuz) python3dist(ipuz)
python-ipuz-doc: python-ipuz-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2138047 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, C/C++, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, R, Ocaml, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #6 from Davide Cavalca dcavalca@fb.com --- Thanks!
$ fedpkg request-repo python-ipuz 2138047 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48495 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-ipuz f37 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48496 $ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-ipuz f36 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48497
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ipuz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-875f892960 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-875f892960
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-10-31 17:13:42
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-875f892960 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86574501e8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-86574501e8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86574501e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-86574501e8 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-86574501e8
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=2138047
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc
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=2138047
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-120d4236cc has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138047
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-86574501e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com