[Bug 1878976] New: Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Bug ID: 1878976 Summary: Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aurelien@bompard.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-bravado-core/python-bravado... SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python-bravado-core/python-bravado... Description: bravado-core is a Python library that adds client-side and server-side support for the OpenAPI Specification v2.0.
Fedora Account System Username: abompard
Expected rpmlint error: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/bravado_core/py.typed This is normal, as specified in PEP 561: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0561/#packaging-type-information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |nphilipp@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nphilipp@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen nphilipp@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== 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. [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 10240 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]: 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. [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]: 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). [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-bravado-core-5.17.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-bravado-core-5.17.0-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-bravado-core.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/bravado_core/py.typed 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/bravado-core/bravado-core-5... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b3b06ae86d3c80de5694340e55df7c9097857ff965b76642979e2a961f332abf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3b06ae86d3c80de5694340e55df7c9097857ff965b76642979e2a961f332abf
Requires -------- python3-bravado-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi) python3.9dist(jsonref) python3.9dist(jsonschema) python3.9dist(jsonschema[format]) python3.9dist(msgpack) python3.9dist(python-dateutil) python3.9dist(pytz) python3.9dist(pyyaml) python3.9dist(simplejson) python3.9dist(six) python3.9dist(swagger-spec-validator)
Provides -------- python3-bravado-core: python-bravado-core python3-bravado-core python3.9-bravado-core python3.9dist(bravado-core) python3dist(bravado-core)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L mockrepo -b 1878976 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, R, C/C++, fonts, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Built with local dependencies:
/home/nils/devel/reviews/fedora/mockrepo/python3-jsonref-0.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
This package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bravado-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com Blocks| |1854486
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- The package does not install at all on rawhide:
Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python3.9dist(jsonschema[format]) >= 2.5.1 needed by python3-bravado-core-5.17.0-1.fc34.noarch
The review template even says that:
(In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #1)
Issues:
- Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
Yet...
This package is APPROVED.
I am confused :/
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854486 [Bug 1854486] Automatic RPM dependencies on Python Extras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- A PR with the fix: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jsonschema/pull-request/6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-220d288342 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5cdd577e40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2
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=1878976
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Side note: The f33 branch is missing entirely, but the package has been built in f34 and f32.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-09-27 01:57:23
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- The installation failure also impacts Fedora 32 except that it installs, but fails to function properly: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bravado-core/pull-request/1
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com