[Bug 2029677] New: Review Request: sep - Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python and C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Bug ID: 2029677 Summary: Review Request: sep - Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python and C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pemensik@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/sep.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/sep-1.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description:
SEP makes available some of the astronomical source extraction and photometry algorithms in Source Extractor as stand-alone functions and classes. These operate directly on in-memory numpy arrays (no FITS files, configuration files, etc). It’s derived directly from (and tested against) the Source Extractor code base.
Native code shared library.
Fedora Account System Username: pemensik
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79666000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sergio.pasra@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(sergio.pasra@gmai | |l.com)
--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Hello Sergio. I would like to provide also native C library to sep package, which you maitain in python-sep. Would you like to co-maintain it? I have used your spec of python-sep as a template and added cmake parts with native. I think it should eventually replace python-sep, because it provides python code from github repository.
Are you interested?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1938451
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- This package is sort of modified python-sep package [1], where also native library export is done. It provides both native and python parts taken from authoritative source. I think it should replace python-sep.
It is a library, which is used in modified form in stellarsolver, bug #1938451. It cannot be used straight away because stellarsolver's code is modified an incompatible. But should be ready once that is possible.
1. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sep
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938451 [Bug 1938451] Review Request: stellarsolver - The Cross Platform Sextractor and Internal Astrometric Solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mattia.verga@protonmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- So, both this new package and python-sep are going to provide python3-sep... I think it's wrong.
I think the only way to handle this is to bump this new package to a version greater than python-sep and retire python-sep.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2038164
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038164 [Bug 2038164] Deprecate python-sep
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #4)
So, both this new package and python-sep are going to provide python3-sep... I think it's wrong.
I think the only way to handle this is to bump this new package to a version greater than python-sep and retire python-sep.
Of course, something like that is expected. This package can provide both python and native library from single source. Moreover it does not use python site to proxy releases, but uses what I believe is original author's repository.
Because I am using %autorelease macro, raising release above current 3 would be just matter of 3 commits. I think Obsoletes is not necessary if the new python3-sep package has the same name, just is built from different source.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #6 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #5)
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #4)
So, both this new package and python-sep are going to provide python3-sep... I think it's wrong.
I think the only way to handle this is to bump this new package to a version greater than python-sep and retire python-sep.
Of course, something like that is expected. This package can provide both python and native library from single source. Moreover it does not use python site to proxy releases, but uses what I believe is original author's repository.
Because I am using %autorelease macro, raising release above current 3 would be just matter of 3 commits.
...or just use the `-b` parameter.
I think Obsoletes is not necessary if the new python3-sep package has the same name, just is built from different source.
Having two packages providing the same file (not only just the same name package/subpackage) would cause a conflict, which is not allowed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/
I think we should handle this like a package renaming, thus the new package should provide appropriate Obsoletes and Provides and everything should be synchronized with Sergio retiring the old package (obviously if he accepts to do this change).
I'm willing to perform this review, but I'd like to hear Sergio's opinion...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #8 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Still interested in review. Updated to following release.
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep-1.2.1-4.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5242832 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677 Bug 2029677 depends on bug 2038164, which changed state.
Bug 2038164 Summary: Deprecate python-sep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038164
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 40960 bytes in 6 files. [ ]: 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
===== 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 sep- devel , python3-sep [ ]: 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. [!]: %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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: sep-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-devel-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm python3-sep-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-debuginfo-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-debugsource-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm sep-1.2.1-4.fc39.src.rpm ======================================================= 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpnk07vg1i')] checks: 31, packages: 6
sep.src: W: strange-permission sep.spec 600 sep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ======================== 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.4 s ========================
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: sep-debuginfo-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.rpm ======================================================= 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphoj_5ful')] checks: 31, packages: 1
======================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s ========================
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: 5
sep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.5 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-sep: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/sep.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/kbarbary/sep/archive/v1.2.1/sep-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 746223ff6cba9a2e32312be3e549c95d14f286d1a77871fedfe282a13c7f45e8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 746223ff6cba9a2e32312be3e549c95d14f286d1a77871fedfe282a13c7f45e8
Requires -------- sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
sep-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsep.so.0()(64bit) sep(x86-64)
python3-sep (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) python(abi) python3.11dist(numpy) rtld(GNU_HASH)
sep-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
sep-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- sep: libsep.so.0()(64bit) sep sep(x86-64)
sep-devel: sep-devel sep-devel(x86-64)
python3-sep: python-sep python3-sep python3-sep(x86-64) python3.11-sep python3.11dist(sep) python3dist(sep)
sep-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) libsep.so.0.6.0-1.2.1-4.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit) sep-debuginfo sep-debuginfo(x86-64)
sep-debugsource: sep-debugsource sep-debugsource(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/srpm/sep.spec 2023-06-20 13:38:40.705014960 +0300 +++ /home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/reviews/sep/2029677-sep/srpm-unpacked/sep.spec 2023-01-18 13:10:08.000000000 +0300 @@ -1,2 +1,12 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.3.1) +## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + %global forgeurl0 https://github.com/kbarbary/sep
@@ -82,3 +92,13 @@
%changelog -%autochangelog +* Wed Jan 18 2023 Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com - 1.2.1-4 +- Uncommitted changes + +* Tue Jan 11 2022 Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com - 1.2.0-5 +- Ensure higher version than the last build of python-sep is used + +* Tue Dec 07 2021 Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com - 1.2.0-1 +- Native package sep + +* Mon Apr 19 2021 Ingvar Stepanyan me@rreverser.com +- RPMAUTOSPEC: unresolvable merge
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2029677 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, Haskell, Perl, PHP, fonts, Ruby, Ocaml, Java, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Please use SPDX expressions for licenses b) Can tests be run using tox?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677 Bug 2029677 depends on bug 2038164, which changed state.
Bug 2038164 Summary: Deprecate python-sep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038164
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|EOL |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #12 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Made a modernized python version, including tox and SPDX tags.
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep-1.2.1-5.fc41.src.rpm
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com's needinfo: Bug 2029677: Review Request: sep - Astronomical source extraction and photometry in Python and C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #12 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Made a modernized python version, including tox and SPDX tags.
Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/srpm/sep-1.2.1-5.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029677
--- Comment #13 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- There will be probably some issues once numpy is upgraded to version 2. Not yet on rawhide though. That fails when tox run is used from command line.
Upstream issue reported: https://github.com/kbarbary/sep/issues/157
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com