[Bug 2121258] New: Review Request: python-textual - TUI (Text User Interface) framework for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
Bug ID: 2121258 Summary: Review Request: python-textual - TUI (Text User Interface) framework for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jonathan@almalinux.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/python-textual.spec SRPM URL: https://jonathanspw.fedorapeople.org/python-textual-0.1.18-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: Textual is a TUI (Text User Interface) framework for Python inspired by modern web development.
Fedora Account System Username: jonathanspw
COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonathanspw/python-textual/build/476...
fedora-review: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jonathanspw/python-textua...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |rjones@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- 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". 107 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2121258-python- textual/licensecheck.txt
Yes: License is MIT, checked upstream 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.
Just docs and examples.
[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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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.
Seems like there is no "egg interface" as far as I can tell, so I guess this one is fine.
[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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-textual
Not needed as far as I can tell.
[ ]: Package functions as described.
Did not test.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Yes: 0.1.18
[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.
No signed sources that I could find.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Package is noarch.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Uses %pytest.
[ ]: 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 ------- python3-textual.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
The documentation is in a subpackage, so I think rpmlint is wrong here.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Textualize/textual/archive/v0.1.18/textual-0.1.18.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5b4e7a3f4aacf4e02d537af5594c0632769a3ef3bd70c9c61126cf48aaba7c38 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5b4e7a3f4aacf4e02d537af5594c0632769a3ef3bd70c9c61126cf48aaba7c38
Requires -------- python3-textual (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (python3.11dist(rich) < 13~~ with python3.11dist(rich) >= 12.3) python(abi)
python3-textual-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- python3-textual: python-textual python3-textual python3.11-textual python3.11dist(textual) python3dist(textual)
python3-textual-doc: python-textual-doc python3-textual-doc python3.11-textual-doc
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2121258 -m fedora-37-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-37-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Java, Haskell, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com --- ************************************* This package is APPROVED by rjones *************************************
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-textual
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5d0d509c92 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5d0d509c92
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-08-31 22:06:48
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-5d0d509c92 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