[Bug 1946030] New: Review Request: python-itemadapter - a wrapper for data container objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Bug ID: 1946030 Summary: Review Request: python-itemadapter - a wrapper for data container objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: echevemaster@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-itemadapter/python-itemadapter.... SRPM URL: https://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/python-itemadapter/python-itemadapter-... Description: The ItemAdapter class is a wrapper for data container objects, providing a common interface to handle objects of different types in an uniform manner, regardless of their underlying implementation.
Fedora Account System Username: echevemaster
This package is needed for the new version of python-scrapy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1933617
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933617 [Bug 1933617] F35FailsToInstall: python3-scrapy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Rafael Fontenelle rafaelff@gnome.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rafaelff@gnome.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rafaelff@gnome.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Rafael Fontenelle rafaelff@gnome.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Rafael Fontenelle rafaelff@gnome.org --- Looks good.
Just a few suggestions: - Consider using %py_provides instead of %python_provide as it is deprecated; see the note in the end of
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_pr... - Consider using PyPI URL and %{pypi_source} instead of the URL. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_p... - Consider using a global description variable to avoid repeating it; see same example above
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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rafael/1946030-python- itemadapter/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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [ ]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-itemadapter-0.2.0-1.fc35.noarch.rpm python-itemadapter-0.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/i/itemadapter/itemadapter-0.2... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cb7aaa577fefe2aa6f229ccf4d058e05f44e0178a98c8fb70ee4d95acfabb423 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cb7aaa577fefe2aa6f229ccf4d058e05f44e0178a98c8fb70ee4d95acfabb423
Requires -------- python3-itemadapter (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3-attrs
Provides -------- python3-itemadapter: python-itemadapter python3-itemadapter python3.9-itemadapter python3.9dist(itemadapter) python3dist(itemadapter)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1946030 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R, Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- Thanks for your review Rafael! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33277
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-itemadapter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
--- Comment #4 from Eduardo Echeverria echevemaster@gmail.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/34020 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/34021
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3
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=1946030
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b
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=1946030
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-06-01 01:02:42
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-ce13418d5b has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1946030
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-d6787c75a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com