https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
Bug ID: 1919118 Summary: Review Request: python-snaptime - Transforming timestamps simply Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/snaptime-rpm/blob/main/python-snaptime.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/snaptime-rpm/raw/main/python-snaptime-0.2.4-1... Description: The snaptime package is about transforming timestamps simply. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com --- Heyy Iztok!
I have some concerns regarding the package. First, it seems to be old and not regularly maintained. But, I don't think that should affect anything. You can try publishing some changes upstream so that they fix their tests (Exception.message is deprecated and is no longer used. That is why the tests fail)
Also the Source0 field should be a URL to the tarball. Since there is no versioned release on Github, you can probably use this link: `https://github.com/zartstrom/snaptime/tarball/master/snaptime-master.tar.gz%... (the folder name would change accordingly)
Please also have a look at the rpmlint information:
``` python-snaptime.src:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 21) ```
Other than that it looks great! Below is the automated review:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/major/Documents/NeuroFedora/review/python-snaptime/review- python-snaptime/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snaptime, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/snaptime/__pycache__ [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/snaptime, /usr/lib/python3.9/site- packages/snaptime/__pycache__ [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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 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]: 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 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: [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: 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. [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]: 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-snaptime-0.2.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm python-snaptime-0.2.4-1.fc34.src.rpm python3-snaptime.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps python3-snaptime.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps python-snaptime.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps python-snaptime.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps python-snaptime.src:21: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 21) python-snaptime.src: W: invalid-url Source0: snaptime-master.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- python3-snaptime.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps python3-snaptime.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- python3-snaptime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python(abi)
Provides -------- python3-snaptime: python-snaptime python3-snaptime python3.9-snaptime python3.9dist(snaptime) python3dist(snaptime)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n python-snaptime Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Perl, fonts, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
--- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Hi Aniket,
Thank you very much for your rapid response. I totally agree with you. Software is very old and currently not maintained. However, this is an important rpm package in order to pave the way for maya package (https://github.com/timofurrer/maya) which is a quite popular.
I will try to fix some problems with exceptions in upstream repo in the near future.
Anyway, I have already resolved issues that were identified in the first review round. Please find a new version in my GH repo.
----------------- 1. Source0 is now correct.
2. Tab was removed from SPEC file. -----------------
Thank you once again for your input.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Aniket Pradhan aniketpradhan1999@gmail.com --- Amazing! Approving the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
--- Comment #4 from Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-snaptime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118
Iztok Fister Jr. iztok@iztok-jr-fister.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2021-02-08 11:04:51
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com