[Bug 1619459] New: Review Request: python-u-msgpack-python - A portable, lightweight MessagePack serializer and deserializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Bug ID: 1619459 Summary: Review Request: python-u-msgpack-python - A portable, lightweight MessagePack serializer and deserializer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhroncok@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-u-msgpack-python.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-u-msgpack-python-2.5.0-1.fc...
Description: A lightweight MessagePack serializer and deserializer module written in pure Python. It is fully compliant with the latest MessagePack specification. In particular, it supports the new binary, UTF-8 string, and application-defined ext types.
Fedora Account System Username: churchyard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1619460
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619460 [Bug 1619460] Review Request: python-pytest-expect - py.test plugin to store test expectations and mark tests based on them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Lukáš Tyrychtr lukastyrychtr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lukastyrychtr@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Lukáš Tyrychtr lukastyrychtr@gmail.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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ltyrycht/1619459-python-u-msgpack-python/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: 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 ------- Checking: python3-u-msgpack-python-2.5.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm python-u-msgpack-python-2.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deserializer -> serialize, federalize python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializer -> serialize, federalize python-u-msgpack-python.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python-u-msgpack-python.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deserializer -> serialize, federalize python-u-msgpack-python.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python-u-msgpack-python.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializer -> serialize, federalize 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deserializer -> serialize, federalize python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserializer -> serialize, federalize python3-u-msgpack-python.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/vsergeev/u-msgpack-python <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-u-msgpack-python (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-u-msgpack-python: python3-u-msgpack-python python3.6dist(u-msgpack-python) python3dist(u-msgpack-python)
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/u/u-msgpack-python/u-msgpack-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7ff18ae3721fa75571f9329c08f7c0120416a6ae36194bd8674f65b3b78d0702 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7ff18ae3721fa75571f9329c08f7c0120416a6ae36194bd8674f65b3b78d0702
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1619459 Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Thank you. What's the conclusion?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
--- Comment #3 from Lukáš Tyrychtr lukastyrychtr@gmail.com --- From my point of view it should be okay, however as this is my first review, i'll not add the needed flags. I assume that Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek will look at this review in a few moments and if he agrees with my conclusions he will add the flags.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Oh, so you are getting sponsored? Good luck!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
--- Comment #5 from Lukáš Tyrychtr lukastyrychtr@gmail.com --- Yes, that's the main case for this review, yes. I would like to finish my proposal about the Festival speech synthesis upgrade, so other things must be accomplished first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Looks good to me, package approved.
Good luck for the sponsorship.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-u-msgpack-python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |python-u-msgpack-python-2.5 | |.0-1.fc29 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-08-21 11:16:09
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Thank You both.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619459
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Lukáš Tyrychtr from comment #1)
[ ] = Manual review needed
Please trim this in the future, this is for you, and not supposed to be part of the review.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com