[Bug 2144033] New: Review Request: python-opytimark - Python implementation of Optimization Benchmarking Functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Bug ID: 2144033 Summary: Review Request: python-opytimark - Python implementation of Optimization Benchmarking Functions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-opytim... SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-opytimark-1.0.8-1... Description: This package provides straightforward implementation of benchmarking functions for optimization tasks. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
Koji scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94302816
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gui1ty@penguinpee.nl Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- === Issues ===
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
=> Please use SPDX expressions (see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/)
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
=> Since the main package contains the license file in site-packages/opytimark-1.0.8.dist-info/, you don't need to install it again as part of the doc subpackage. Please add in the comment which dependency is missing that prevents you from providing docs. Also the doc sub-package currently only provides one additional file. That seems a bit overkill as long as documentation is disabled.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
=> The doc subpackage should depend on the main package. Please add missing 'Requires'.
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [!]: 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. [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. [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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 ------- No errors.
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-opytimark-doc.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gugarosa/opytimark/archive/v1.0.8/opytimark-1.0.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 75b2976d9ef78bbefe232b5a0305d48ecd2e5f6b08fc6e7675ae9edd2aa80e98 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 75b2976d9ef78bbefe232b5a0305d48ecd2e5f6b08fc6e7675ae9edd2aa80e98
Requires -------- python3-opytimark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.11dist(coverage) python3.11dist(numpy) python3.11dist(pre-commit) python3.11dist(pylint) python3.11dist(pytest)
python-opytimark-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-opytimark: python-opytimark python3-opytimark python3.11-opytimark python3.11dist(opytimark) python3dist(opytimark)
python-opytimark-doc: python-opytimark-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2144033 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, R, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Java, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Blocks| |1276941 (fedora-neuro)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
--- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks Sandro!
Corrections are up:
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/main/python-opytim... SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-reviews/raw/main/python-opytimark-1.0.8-1...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Sandro gui1ty@penguinpee.nl --- Looks good now.
One last nitpick: you have '%global forgeurl' defined. Why not use it in URL:, instead of spelling out the URL again?
Nonetheless, package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-opytimark
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
--- Comment #5 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks again, Sandro!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5ede5a1464 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5ede5a1464
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144033
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-11-22 08:48:15
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5ede5a1464 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